findings meaning in research

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research

What is the research paper Results section and what does it do?

The Results section of a scientific research paper represents the core findings of a study derived from the methods applied to gather and analyze information. It presents these findings in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation from the author, setting up the reader for later interpretation and evaluation in the Discussion section. A major purpose of the Results section is to break down the data into sentences that show its significance to the research question(s).

The Results section appears third in the section sequence in most scientific papers. It follows the presentation of the Methods and Materials and is presented before the Discussion section —although the Results and Discussion are presented together in many journals. This section answers the basic question “What did you find in your research?”

What is included in the Results section?

The Results section should include the findings of your study and ONLY the findings of your study. The findings include:

• Data presented in tables, charts, graphs, and other figures (may be placed into the text or on separate pages at the end of the manuscript)
• A contextual analysis of this data explaining its meaning in sentence form
• All data that corresponds to the central research question(s)
• All secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

If the scope of the study is broad, or if you studied a variety of variables, or if the methodology used yields a wide range of different results, the author should present only those results that are most relevant to the research question stated in the Introduction section .

As a general rule, any information that does not present the direct findings or outcome of the study should be left out of this section. Unless the journal requests that authors combine the Results and Discussion sections, explanations and interpretations should be omitted from the Results.

How are the results organized?

The best way to organize your Results section is “logically.” One logical and clear method of organizing research results is to provide them alongside the research questions—within each research question, present the type of data that addresses that research question.

Let’s look at an example. Your research question is based on a survey among patients who were treated at a hospital and received postoperative care. Let’s say your first research question is:

“What do hospital patients over age 55 think about postoperative care?”

This can actually be represented as a heading within your Results section, though it might be presented as a statement rather than a question:

Attitudes towards postoperative care in patients over the age of 55

Now present the results that address this specific research question first. In this case, perhaps a table illustrating data from a survey. Likert items can be included in this example. Tables can also present standard deviations, probabilities, correlation matrices, etc.

Following this, present a content analysis, in words, of one end of the spectrum of the survey or data table. In our example case, start with the POSITIVE survey responses regarding postoperative care, using descriptive phrases. For example:

“Sixty-five percent of patients over 55 responded positively to the question “ Are you satisfied with your hospital’s postoperative care ?” (Fig. 2)

Include other results such as subcategory analyses. The amount of textual description used will depend on how much interpretation of tables and figures is necessary and how many examples the reader needs in order to understand the significance of your research findings.

Next, present a content analysis of another part of the spectrum of the same research question, perhaps the NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL responses to the survey. For instance:

  “As Figure 1 shows, 15 out of 60 patients in Group A responded negatively to Question 2.”

After you have assessed the data in one figure and explained it sufficiently, move on to your next research question. For example:

  “How does patient satisfaction correspond to in-hospital improvements made to postoperative care?”

This kind of data may be presented through a figure or set of figures (for instance, a paired T-test table).

Explain the data you present, here in a table, with a concise content analysis:

“The p-value for the comparison between the before and after groups of patients was .03% (Fig. 2), indicating that the greater the dissatisfaction among patients, the more frequent the improvements that were made to postoperative care.”

Let’s examine another example of a Results section from a study on plant tolerance to heavy metal stress . In the Introduction section, the aims of the study are presented as “determining the physiological and morphological responses of Allium cepa L. towards increased cadmium toxicity” and “evaluating its potential to accumulate the metal and its associated environmental consequences.” The Results section presents data showing how these aims are achieved in tables alongside a content analysis, beginning with an overview of the findings:

“Cadmium caused inhibition of root and leave elongation, with increasing effects at higher exposure doses (Fig. 1a-c).”

The figure containing this data is cited in parentheses. Note that this author has combined three graphs into one single figure. Separating the data into separate graphs focusing on specific aspects makes it easier for the reader to assess the findings, and consolidating this information into one figure saves space and makes it easy to locate the most relevant results.

Following this overall summary, the relevant data in the tables is broken down into greater detail in text form in the Results section.

• “Results on the bio-accumulation of cadmium were found to be the highest (17.5 mg kgG1) in the bulb, when the concentration of cadmium in the solution was 1×10G2 M and lowest (0.11 mg kgG1) in the leaves when the concentration was 1×10G3 M.”

Captioning and Referencing Tables and Figures

Tables and figures are central components of your Results section and you need to carefully think about the most effective way to use graphs and tables to present your findings . Therefore, it is crucial to know how to write strong figure captions and to refer to them within the text of the Results section.

The most important advice one can give here as well as throughout the paper is to check the requirements and standards of the journal to which you are submitting your work. Every journal has its own design and layout standards, which you can find in the author instructions on the target journal’s website. Perusing a journal’s published articles will also give you an idea of the proper number, size, and complexity of your figures.

Regardless of which format you use, the figures should be placed in the order they are referenced in the Results section and be as clear and easy to understand as possible. If there are multiple variables being considered (within one or more research questions), it can be a good idea to split these up into separate figures. Subsequently, these can be referenced and analyzed under separate headings and paragraphs in the text.

To create a caption, consider the research question being asked and change it into a phrase. For instance, if one question is “Which color did participants choose?”, the caption might be “Color choice by participant group.” Or in our last research paper example, where the question was “What is the concentration of cadmium in different parts of the onion after 14 days?” the caption reads:

 “Fig. 1(a-c): Mean concentration of Cd determined in (a) bulbs, (b) leaves, and (c) roots of onions after a 14-day period.”

Steps for Composing the Results Section

Because each study is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to designing a strategy for structuring and writing the section of a research paper where findings are presented. The content and layout of this section will be determined by the specific area of research, the design of the study and its particular methodologies, and the guidelines of the target journal and its editors. However, the following steps can be used to compose the results of most scientific research studies and are essential for researchers who are new to preparing a manuscript for publication or who need a reminder of how to construct the Results section.

Step 1 : Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study.

• The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will provide sound examples of successful approaches.
• Note length limitations on restrictions on content. For instance, while many journals require the Results and Discussion sections to be separate, others do not—qualitative research papers often include results and interpretations in the same section (“Results and Discussion”).
• Reading the aims and scope in the journal’s “ guide for authors ” section and understanding the interests of its readers will be invaluable in preparing to write the Results section.

Step 2 : Consider your research results in relation to the journal’s requirements and catalogue your results.

• Focus on experimental results and other findings that are especially relevant to your research questions and objectives and include them even if they are unexpected or do not support your ideas and hypotheses.
• Catalogue your findings—use subheadings to streamline and clarify your report. This will help you avoid excessive and peripheral details as you write and also help your reader understand and remember your findings. Create appendices that might interest specialists but prove too long or distracting for other readers.
• Decide how you will structure of your results. You might match the order of the research questions and hypotheses to your results, or you could arrange them according to the order presented in the Methods section. A chronological order or even a hierarchy of importance or meaningful grouping of main themes or categories might prove effective. Consider your audience, evidence, and most importantly, the objectives of your research when choosing a structure for presenting your findings.

Step 3 : Design figures and tables to present and illustrate your data.

• Tables and figures should be numbered according to the order in which they are mentioned in the main text of the paper.
• Information in figures should be relatively self-explanatory (with the aid of captions), and their design should include all definitions and other information necessary for readers to understand the findings without reading all of the text.
• Use tables and figures as a focal point to tell a clear and informative story about your research and avoid repeating information. But remember that while figures clarify and enhance the text, they cannot replace it.

Step 4 : Draft your Results section using the findings and figures you have organized.

• The goal is to communicate this complex information as clearly and precisely as possible; precise and compact phrases and sentences are most effective.
• In the opening paragraph of this section, restate your research questions or aims to focus the reader’s attention to what the results are trying to show. It is also a good idea to summarize key findings at the end of this section to create a logical transition to the interpretation and discussion that follows.
• Try to write in the past tense and the active voice to relay the findings since the research has already been done and the agent is usually clear. This will ensure that your explanations are also clear and logical.
• Make sure that any specialized terminology or abbreviation you have used here has been defined and clarified in the  Introduction section .

Step 5 : Review your draft; edit and revise until it reports results exactly as you would like to have them reported to your readers.

• Double-check the accuracy and consistency of all the data, as well as all of the visual elements included.
• Read your draft aloud to catch language errors (grammar, spelling, and mechanics), awkward phrases, and missing transitions.
• Ensure that your results are presented in the best order to focus on objectives and prepare readers for interpretations, valuations, and recommendations in the Discussion section . Look back over the paper’s Introduction and background while anticipating the Discussion and Conclusion sections to ensure that the presentation of your results is consistent and effective.
• Consider seeking additional guidance on your paper. Find additional readers to look over your Results section and see if it can be improved in any way. Peers, professors, or qualified experts can provide valuable insights.

One excellent option is to use a professional English proofreading and editing service  such as Wordvice, including our paper editing service . With hundreds of qualified editors from dozens of scientific fields, Wordvice has helped thousands of authors revise their manuscripts and get accepted into their target journals. Read more about the  proofreading and editing process  before proceeding with getting academic editing services and manuscript editing services for your manuscript.

As the representation of your study’s data output, the Results section presents the core information in your research paper. By writing with clarity and conciseness and by highlighting and explaining the crucial findings of their study, authors increase the impact and effectiveness of their research manuscripts.

For more articles and videos on writing your research manuscript, visit Wordvice’s Resources page.

Wordvice Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Summary

Definition:

A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. It is often used as a tool to quickly communicate the main findings of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or decision-makers.

Structure of Research Summary

The Structure of a Research Summary typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides a brief background of the research problem or question, explains the purpose of the study, and outlines the research objectives.
• Methodology : This section explains the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. It describes the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Results : This section presents the main findings of the study, including statistical analysis if applicable. It may include tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains their implications. It discusses the significance of the findings, compares them to previous research, and identifies any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main points of the research and provides a conclusion based on the findings. It may also suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• References : This section lists the sources cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

How to Write Research Summary

Here are the steps you can follow to write a research summary:

• Read the research article or study thoroughly: To write a summary, you must understand the research article or study you are summarizing. Therefore, read the article or study carefully to understand its purpose, research design, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the main points : Once you have read the research article or study, identify the main points, key findings, and research question. You can highlight or take notes of the essential points and findings to use as a reference when writing your summary.
• Write the introduction: Start your summary by introducing the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study. Briefly explain why the research is important and its significance.
• Summarize the methodology : In this section, summarize the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. Explain the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Present the results: Summarize the main findings of the study. Use tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data if necessary.
• Interpret the results: In this section, interpret the results and explain their implications. Discuss the significance of the findings, compare them to previous research, and identify any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclude the summary : Summarize the main points of the research and provide a conclusion based on the findings. Suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• Revise and edit : Once you have written the summary, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free of errors. Make sure that your summary accurately represents the research article or study.
• Add references: Include a list of references cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

Example of Research Summary

Here is an example of a research summary:

Title: The Effects of Yoga on Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the effects of yoga on mental health. The study aimed to investigate whether yoga practice can improve mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life.

Methodology : The study analyzed data from 14 randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of yoga on mental health outcomes. The sample included a total of 862 participants. The yoga interventions varied in length and frequency, ranging from four to twelve weeks, with sessions lasting from 45 to 90 minutes.

Results : The meta-analysis found that yoga practice significantly improved mental health outcomes. Participants who practiced yoga showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as stress levels. Quality of life also improved in those who practiced yoga.

Discussion : The findings of this study suggest that yoga can be an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. The study supports the growing body of evidence that suggests that yoga can have a positive impact on mental health. Limitations of the study include the variability of the yoga interventions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion : Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support the use of yoga as an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length and frequency of yoga interventions for different populations.

References :

• Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Langhorst, J., Dobos, G., & Berger, B. (2013). Yoga for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and anxiety, 30(11), 1068-1083.
• Khalsa, S. B. (2004). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: a bibliometric analysis of published research studies. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 48(3), 269-285.
• Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3-12.

Purpose of Research Summary

The purpose of a research summary is to provide a brief overview of a research project or study, including its main points, findings, and conclusions. The summary allows readers to quickly understand the essential aspects of the research without having to read the entire article or study.

Research summaries serve several purposes, including:

• Facilitating comprehension: A research summary allows readers to quickly understand the main points and findings of a research project or study without having to read the entire article or study. This makes it easier for readers to comprehend the research and its significance.
• Communicating research findings: Research summaries are often used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public. The summary presents the essential aspects of the research in a clear and concise manner, making it easier for non-experts to understand.
• Supporting decision-making: Research summaries can be used to support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. This information can be used by policymakers or practitioners to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Saving time: Research summaries save time for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders who need to review multiple research studies. Rather than having to read the entire article or study, they can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.

Characteristics of Research Summary

The following are some of the key characteristics of a research summary:

• Concise : A research summary should be brief and to the point, providing a clear and concise overview of the main points of the research.
• Objective : A research summary should be written in an objective tone, presenting the research findings without bias or personal opinion.
• Comprehensive : A research summary should cover all the essential aspects of the research, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research summary should accurately reflect the key findings and conclusions of the research.
• Clear and well-organized: A research summary should be easy to read and understand, with a clear structure and logical flow.
• Relevant : A research summary should focus on the most important and relevant aspects of the research, highlighting the key findings and their implications.
• Audience-specific: A research summary should be tailored to the intended audience, using language and terminology that is appropriate and accessible to the reader.
• Citations : A research summary should include citations to the original research articles or studies, allowing readers to access the full text of the research if desired.

When to write Research Summary

Here are some situations when it may be appropriate to write a research summary:

• Proposal stage: A research summary can be included in a research proposal to provide a brief overview of the research aims, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.
• Conference presentation: A research summary can be prepared for a conference presentation to summarize the main findings of a study or research project.
• Journal submission: Many academic journals require authors to submit a research summary along with their research article or study. The summary provides a brief overview of the study’s main points, findings, and conclusions and helps readers quickly understand the research.
• Funding application: A research summary can be included in a funding application to provide a brief summary of the research aims, objectives, and expected outcomes.
• Policy brief: A research summary can be prepared as a policy brief to communicate research findings to policymakers or stakeholders in a concise and accessible manner.

Advantages of Research Summary

Research summaries offer several advantages, including:

• Time-saving: A research summary saves time for readers who need to understand the key findings and conclusions of a research project quickly. Rather than reading the entire research article or study, readers can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.
• Clarity and accessibility: A research summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the research project’s main points, making it easier for readers to understand the research without having to be experts in the field.
• Improved comprehension: A research summary helps readers comprehend the research by providing a brief and focused overview of the key findings and conclusions, making it easier to understand the research and its significance.
• Enhanced communication: Research summaries can be used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public, in a concise and accessible manner.
• Facilitated decision-making: Research summaries can support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. Policymakers or practitioners can use this information to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Increased dissemination: Research summaries can be easily shared and disseminated, allowing research findings to reach a wider audience.

Limitations of Research Summary

Limitations of the Research Summary are as follows:

• Limited scope: Research summaries provide a brief overview of the research project’s main points, findings, and conclusions, which can be limiting. They may not include all the details, nuances, and complexities of the research that readers may need to fully understand the study’s implications.
• Risk of oversimplification: Research summaries can be oversimplified, reducing the complexity of the research and potentially distorting the findings or conclusions.
• Lack of context: Research summaries may not provide sufficient context to fully understand the research findings, such as the research background, methodology, or limitations. This may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research.
• Possible bias: Research summaries may be biased if they selectively emphasize certain findings or conclusions over others, potentially distorting the overall picture of the research.
• Format limitations: Research summaries may be constrained by the format or length requirements, making it challenging to fully convey the research’s main points, findings, and conclusions.
• Accessibility: Research summaries may not be accessible to all readers, particularly those with limited literacy skills, visual impairments, or language barriers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The results section is where you report the findings of your study based upon the methodology [or methodologies] you applied to gather information. The results section should state the findings of the research arranged in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation. A section describing results should be particularly detailed if your paper includes data generated from your own research.

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070.

Importance of a Good Results Section

When formulating the results section, it's important to remember that the results of a study do not prove anything . Findings can only confirm or reject the hypothesis underpinning your study. However, the act of articulating the results helps you to understand the problem from within, to break it into pieces, and to view the research problem from various perspectives.

The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported . Be concise. Use non-textual elements appropriately, such as figures and tables, to present findings more effectively. In deciding what data to describe in your results section, you must clearly distinguish information that would normally be included in a research paper from any raw data or other content that could be included as an appendix. In general, raw data that has not been summarized should not be included in the main text of your paper unless requested to do so by your professor.

Avoid providing data that is not critical to answering the research question . The background information you described in the introduction section should provide the reader with any additional context or explanation needed to understand the results. A good strategy is to always re-read the background section of your paper after you have written up your results to ensure that the reader has enough context to understand the results [and, later, how you interpreted the results in the discussion section of your paper that follows].

Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Brett, Paul. "A Genre Analysis of the Results Section of Sociology Articles." English for Specific Speakers 13 (1994): 47-59; Go to English for Specific Purposes on ScienceDirect;Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008; Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit; "Reporting Findings." In Making Sense of Social Research Malcolm Williams, editor. (London;: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp. 188-207.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Organization and Approach

For most research papers in the social and behavioral sciences, there are two possible ways of organizing the results . Both approaches are appropriate in how you report your findings, but use only one approach.

• Present a synopsis of the results followed by an explanation of key findings . This approach can be used to highlight important findings. For example, you may have noticed an unusual correlation between two variables during the analysis of your findings. It is appropriate to highlight this finding in the results section. However, speculating as to why this correlation exists and offering a hypothesis about what may be happening belongs in the discussion section of your paper.
• Present a result and then explain it, before presenting the next result then explaining it, and so on, then end with an overall synopsis . This is the preferred approach if you have multiple results of equal significance. It is more common in longer papers because it helps the reader to better understand each finding. In this model, it is helpful to provide a brief conclusion that ties each of the findings together and provides a narrative bridge to the discussion section of the your paper.

NOTE:   Just as the literature review should be arranged under conceptual categories rather than systematically describing each source, you should also organize your findings under key themes related to addressing the research problem. This can be done under either format noted above [i.e., a thorough explanation of the key results or a sequential, thematic description and explanation of each finding].

II.  Content

In general, the content of your results section should include the following:

• Introductory context for understanding the results by restating the research problem underpinning your study . This is useful in re-orientating the reader's focus back to the research problem after having read a review of the literature and your explanation of the methods used for gathering and analyzing information.
• Inclusion of non-textual elements, such as, figures, charts, photos, maps, tables, etc. to further illustrate key findings, if appropriate . Rather than relying entirely on descriptive text, consider how your findings can be presented visually. This is a helpful way of condensing a lot of data into one place that can then be referred to in the text. Consider referring to appendices if there is a lot of non-textual elements.
• A systematic description of your results, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation . Not all results that emerge from the methodology used to gather information may be related to answering the " So What? " question. Do not confuse observations with interpretations; observations in this context refers to highlighting important findings you discovered through a process of reviewing prior literature and gathering data.
• The page length of your results section is guided by the amount and types of data to be reported . However, focus on findings that are important and related to addressing the research problem. It is not uncommon to have unanticipated results that are not relevant to answering the research question. This is not to say that you don't acknowledge tangential findings and, in fact, can be referred to as areas for further research in the conclusion of your paper. However, spending time in the results section describing tangential findings clutters your overall results section and distracts the reader.
• A short paragraph that concludes the results section by synthesizing the key findings of the study . Highlight the most important findings you want readers to remember as they transition into the discussion section. This is particularly important if, for example, there are many results to report, the findings are complicated or unanticipated, or they are impactful or actionable in some way [i.e., able to be pursued in a feasible way applied to practice].

NOTE:   Always use the past tense when referring to your study's findings. Reference to findings should always be described as having already happened because the method used to gather the information has been completed.

III.  Problems to Avoid

When writing the results section, avoid doing the following :

• Discussing or interpreting your results . Save this for the discussion section of your paper, although where appropriate, you should compare or contrast specific results to those found in other studies [e.g., "Similar to the work of Smith [1990], one of the findings of this study is the strong correlation between motivation and academic achievement...."].
• Reporting background information or attempting to explain your findings. This should have been done in your introduction section, but don't panic! Often the results of a study point to the need for additional background information or to explain the topic further, so don't think you did something wrong. Writing up research is rarely a linear process. Always revise your introduction as needed.
• Ignoring negative results . A negative result generally refers to a finding that does not support the underlying assumptions of your study. Do not ignore them. Document these findings and then state in your discussion section why you believe a negative result emerged from your study. Note that negative results, and how you handle them, can give you an opportunity to write a more engaging discussion section, therefore, don't be hesitant to highlight them.
• Including raw data or intermediate calculations . Ask your professor if you need to include any raw data generated by your study, such as transcripts from interviews or data files. If raw data is to be included, place it in an appendix or set of appendices that are referred to in the text.
• Be as factual and concise as possible in reporting your findings . Do not use phrases that are vague or non-specific, such as, "appeared to be greater than other variables..." or "demonstrates promising trends that...." Subjective modifiers should be explained in the discussion section of the paper [i.e., why did one variable appear greater? Or, how does the finding demonstrate a promising trend?].
• Presenting the same data or repeating the same information more than once . If you want to highlight a particular finding, it is appropriate to do so in the results section. However, you should emphasize its significance in relation to addressing the research problem in the discussion section. Do not repeat it in your results section because you can do that in the conclusion of your paper.
• Confusing figures with tables . Be sure to properly label any non-textual elements in your paper. Don't call a chart an illustration or a figure a table. If you are not sure, go here .

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070; Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008;  Caprette, David R. Writing Research Papers. Experimental Biosciences Resources. Rice University; Hancock, Dawson R. and Bob Algozzine. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers . 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011; Introduction to Nursing Research: Reporting Research Findings. Nursing Research: Open Access Nursing Research and Review Articles. (January 4, 2012); Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit ; Ng, K. H. and W. C. Peh. "Writing the Results." Singapore Medical Journal 49 (2008): 967-968; Reporting Research Findings. Wilder Research, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. (February 2009); Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Results. Thesis Writing in the Sciences. Course Syllabus. University of Florida.

Writing Tip

Why Don't I Just Combine the Results Section with the Discussion Section?

It's not unusual to find articles in scholarly social science journals where the author(s) have combined a description of the findings with a discussion about their significance and implications. You could do this. However, if you are inexperienced writing research papers, consider creating two distinct sections for each section in your paper as a way to better organize your thoughts and, by extension, your paper. Think of the results section as the place where you report what your study found; think of the discussion section as the place where you interpret the information and answer the "So What?" question. As you become more skilled writing research papers, you can consider melding the results of your study with a discussion of its implications.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn and Aleksandra Kasztalska. Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: Insiderness
• Next: Using Non-Textual Elements >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

From Data to Discovery: The Findings Section of a Research Paper

Discover the role of the findings section of a research paper here. Explore strategies and techniques to maximize your understanding.

Are you curious about the Findings section of a research paper? Did you know that this is a part where all the juicy results and discoveries are laid out for the world to see? Undoubtedly, the findings section of a research paper plays a critical role in presenting and interpreting the collected data. It serves as a comprehensive account of the study’s results and their implications.

Well, look no further because we’ve got you covered! In this article, we’re diving into the ins and outs of presenting and interpreting data in the findings section. We’ll be sharing tips and tricks on how to effectively present your findings, whether it’s through tables, graphs, or good old descriptive statistics.

Overview of the Findings Section of a Research Paper

The findings section of a research paper presents the results and outcomes of the study or investigation. It is a crucial part of the research paper where researchers interpret and analyze the data collected and draw conclusions based on their findings. This section aims to answer the research questions or hypotheses formulated earlier in the paper and provide evidence to support or refute them.

In the findings section, researchers typically present the data clearly and organized. They may use tables, graphs, charts, or other visual aids to illustrate the patterns, trends, or relationships observed in the data. The findings should be presented objectively, without any bias or personal opinions, and should be accompanied by appropriate statistical analyses or methods to ensure the validity and reliability of the results.

Organizing the Findings Section

The findings section of the research paper organizes and presents the results obtained from the study in a clear and logical manner. Here is a suggested structure for organizing the Findings section:

Introduction to the Findings

Start the section by providing a brief overview of the research objectives and the methodology employed. Recapitulate the research questions or hypotheses addressed in the study.

To learn more about methodology, read this article .

Descriptive Statistics and Data Presentation

Present the collected data using appropriate descriptive statistics. This may involve using tables, graphs, charts, or other visual representations to convey the information effectively. Remember: we can easily help you with that.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Perform a thorough analysis of the data collected and describe the key findings. Present the results of statistical analyses or any other relevant methods used to analyze the data. 

Discussion of Findings

Analyze and interpret the findings in the context of existing literature or theoretical frameworks . Discuss any patterns, trends, or relationships observed in the data. Compare and contrast the results with prior studies, highlighting similarities and differences. 

Limitations and Constraints

Acknowledge and discuss any limitations or constraints that may have influenced the findings. This could include issues such as sample size, data collection methods, or potential biases. 

Summarize the main findings of the study and emphasize their significance. Revisit the research questions or hypotheses and discuss whether they have been supported or refuted by the findings.

Presenting Data in the Findings Section

There are several ways to present data in the findings section of a research paper. Here are some common methods:

• Tables : Tables are commonly used to present organized and structured data. They are particularly useful when presenting numerical data with multiple variables or categories. Tables allow readers to easily compare and interpret the information presented. Learn how to cite tables in research papers here .
• Graphs and Charts: Graphs and charts are effective visual tools for presenting data, especially when illustrating trends, patterns, or relationships. Common types include bar graphs, line graphs, scatter plots, pie charts, and histograms. Graphs and charts provide a visual representation of the data, making it easier for readers to comprehend and interpret.
• Figures and Images: Figures and images can be used to present data that requires visual representation, such as maps, diagrams, or experimental setups. They can enhance the understanding of complex data or provide visual evidence to support the research findings.
• Descriptive Statistics: Descriptive statistics provide summary measures of central tendency (e.g., mean, median, mode) and dispersion (e.g., standard deviation, range) for numerical data. These statistics can be included in the text or presented in tables or graphs to provide a concise summary of the data distribution.

How to Effectively Interpret Results

Interpreting the results is a crucial aspect of the findings section in a research paper. It involves analyzing the data collected and drawing meaningful conclusions based on the findings. Following are the guidelines on how to effectively interpret the results.

Step 1 – Begin with a Recap

Start by restating the research questions or hypotheses to provide context for the interpretation. Remind readers of the specific objectives of the study to help them understand the relevance of the findings.

Step 2 – Relate Findings to Research Questions

Clearly articulate how the results address the research questions or hypotheses. Discuss each finding in relation to the original objectives and explain how it contributes to answering the research questions or supporting/refuting the hypotheses.

Step 3 – Compare with Existing Literature

Compare and contrast the findings with previous studies or existing literature. Highlight similarities, differences, or discrepancies between your results and those of other researchers. Discuss any consistencies or contradictions and provide possible explanations for the observed variations.

Step 4 – Consider Limitations and Alternative Explanations

Acknowledge the limitations of the study and discuss how they may have influenced the results. Explore alternative explanations or factors that could potentially account for the findings. Evaluate the robustness of the results in light of the limitations and alternative interpretations.

Step 5 – Discuss Implications and Significance

Highlight any potential applications or areas where further research is needed based on the outcomes of the study.

Step 6 – Address Inconsistencies and Contradictions

If there are any inconsistencies or contradictions in the findings, address them directly. Discuss possible reasons for the discrepancies and consider their implications for the overall interpretation. Be transparent about any uncertainties or unresolved issues.

Step 7 – Be Objective and Data-Driven

Present the interpretation objectively, based on the evidence and data collected. Avoid personal biases or subjective opinions. Use logical reasoning and sound arguments to support your interpretations.

Reporting Statistical Significance

When reporting statistical significance in the findings section of a research paper, it is important to accurately convey the results of statistical analyses and their implications. Here are some guidelines on how to report statistical significance effectively:

• Clearly State the Statistical Test: Begin by clearly stating the specific statistical test or analysis used to determine statistical significance. For example, you might mention that a t-test, chi-square test, ANOVA, correlation analysis, or regression analysis was employed.
• Report the Test Statistic: Provide the value of the test statistic obtained from the analysis. This could be the t-value, F-value, chi-square value, correlation coefficient, or any other relevant statistic depending on the test used.
• State the Degrees of Freedom: Indicate the degrees of freedom associated with the statistical test. Degrees of freedom represent the number of independent pieces of information available for estimating a statistic. For example, in a t-test, degrees of freedom would be mentioned as (df = n1 + n2 – 2) for an independent samples test or (df = N – 2) for a paired samples test.
• Report the p-value: The p-value indicates the probability of obtaining results as extreme or more extreme than the observed results, assuming the null hypothesis is true. Report the p-value associated with the statistical test. For example, p < 0.05 denotes statistical significance at the conventional level of α = 0.05.
• Provide the Conclusion: Based on the p-value obtained, state whether the results are statistically significant or not. If the p-value is less than the predetermined threshold (e.g., p < 0.05), state that the results are statistically significant. If the p-value is greater than the threshold, state that the results are not statistically significant.
• Discuss the Interpretation: After reporting statistical significance, discuss the practical or theoretical implications of the finding. Explain what the significant result means in the context of your research questions or hypotheses. Address the effect size and practical significance of the findings, if applicable.
• Consider Effect Size Measures: Along with statistical significance, it is often important to report effect size measures. Effect size quantifies the magnitude of the relationship or difference observed in the data. Common effect size measures include Cohen’s d, eta-squared, or Pearson’s r. Reporting effect size provides additional meaningful information about the strength of the observed effects.
• Be Accurate and Transparent: Ensure that the reported statistical significance and associated values are accurate. Avoid misinterpreting or misrepresenting the results. Be transparent about the statistical tests conducted, any assumptions made, and potential limitations or caveats that may impact the interpretation of the significant results.

Conclusion of the Findings Section

The conclusion of the findings section in a research paper serves as a summary and synthesis of the key findings and their implications. It is an opportunity to tie together the results, discuss their significance, and address the research objectives. Here are some guidelines on how to write the conclusion of the Findings section:

Summarize the Key Findings

Begin by summarizing the main findings of the study. Provide a concise overview of the significant results, patterns, or relationships that emerged from the data analysis. Highlight the most important findings that directly address the research questions or hypotheses.

Revisit the Research Objectives

Remind the reader of the research objectives stated at the beginning of the paper. Discuss how the findings contribute to achieving those objectives and whether they support or challenge the initial research questions or hypotheses.

Suggest Future Directions

Identify areas for further research or future directions based on the findings. Discuss any unanswered questions, unresolved issues, or new avenues of inquiry that emerged during the study. Propose potential research opportunities that can build upon the current findings.

The Best Scientific Figures to Represent Your Findings 

Have you heard of any tool that helps you represent your findings through visuals like graphs, pie charts, and infographics? Well, if you haven’t, then here’s the tool you need to explore – Mind the Graph . It’s the tool that has the best scientific figures to represent your findings. Go, try it now, and make your research findings stand out!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Sowjanya Pedada

Sowjanya is a passionate writer and an avid reader. She holds MBA in Agribusiness Management and now is working as a content writer. She loves to play with words and hopes to make a difference in the world through her writings. Apart from writing, she is interested in reading fiction novels and doing craftwork. She also loves to travel and explore different cuisines and spend time with her family and friends.

Content tags

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

31 Interpretation In Qualitative Research: What, Why, How

Allen Trent, College of Education, University of Wyoming

Jeasik Cho, Department of Educational Studies, University of Wyoming

• Published: 02 September 2020
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter addresses a wide range of concepts related to interpretation in qualitative research, examines the meaning and importance of interpretation in qualitative inquiry, and explores the ways methodology, data, and the self/researcher as instrument interact and impact interpretive processes. Additionally, the chapter presents a series of strategies for qualitative researchers engaged in the process of interpretation and closes by presenting a framework for qualitative researchers designed to inform their interpretations. The framework includes attention to the key qualitative research concepts transparency, reflexivity, analysis, validity, evidence, and literature. Four questions frame the chapter: What is interpretation, and why are interpretive strategies important in qualitative research? How do methodology, data, and the researcher/self impact interpretation in qualitative research? How do qualitative researchers engage in the process of interpretation? And, in what ways can a framework for interpretation strategies support qualitative researchers across multiple methodologies and paradigms?

“ All human knowledge takes the form of interpretation.” In this seemingly simple statement, the late German philosopher Walter Benjamin asserted that all knowledge is mediated and constructed. In doing so, he situates himself as an interpretivist, one who believes that human subjectivity, individuals’ characteristics, feelings, opinions, and experiential backgrounds impact observations, analysis of these observations, and resultant knowledge/truth constructions. Hammersley ( 2013 ) noted,

People—unlike atoms … actively interpret or make sense of their environment and of themselves; the ways in which they do this are shaped by the particular cultures in which they live; and these distinctive cultural orientations will strongly influence not only what they believe but also what they do. (p. 26)

Contrast this perspective with positivist claims that knowledge is based exclusively on external facts, objectively observed and recorded. Interpretivists, then, acknowledge that if positivistic notions of knowledge and truth are inadequate to explain social phenomena, then positivist, hard science approaches to research (i.e., the scientific method and its variants) are also inadequate and can even have a detrimental impact. According to Polyani (1967), “The ideal of exact science would turn out to be fundamentally misleading and possibly a source of devastating fallacies” (as cited in Packer, 2018 , p. 71). So, although the literature often contrasts quantitative and qualitative research as largely a difference in kinds of data employed (numerical vs. linguistic), instead, the primary differentiation is in the foundational, paradigmatic assumptions about truth, knowledge, and objectivity.

This chapter is about interpretation and the strategies that qualitative researchers use to interpret a wide variety of “texts.” Knowledge, we assert, is constructed, both individually (constructivism) and socially (constructionism). We accept this as our starting point. Our aim here is to share our perspective on a broad set of concepts associated with the interpretive, or meaning-making, process. Although it may happen at different times and in different ways, interpretation is part of almost all qualitative research.

Qualitative research is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide array of paradigmatic views, goals, and methods. Still, there are key unifying elements that include a generally constructionist epistemological standpoint, attention to primarily linguistic data, and generally accepted protocols or syntax for conducting research. Typically, qualitative researchers begin with a starting point—a curiosity, a problem in need of solutions, a research question, and/or a desire to better understand a situation from the “native” perspectives of the individuals who inhabit that context. This is what anthropologists call the emic , or insider’s, perspective. Olivier de Sardan ( 2015 ) wrote, “It evokes the meaning that social facts have for the actors concerned. It is opposed to the term etic , which, at times, designates more external or ‘objective’ data, and, at others, the researcher’s interpretive analysis” (p. 65).

From this starting point, researchers determine the appropriate kinds of data to collect, engage in fieldwork as participant observers to gather these data, organize the data, look for patterns, and attempt to understand the emic perspectives while integrating their own emergent interpretations. Researchers construct meaning from data by synthesizing research “findings,” “assertions,” or “theories” that can be shared so that others may also gain insights from the conducted inquiry. This interpretive process has a long history; hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation, blossomed in the 17th century in the form of biblical exegesis (Packer, 2018 ).

Although there are commonalities that cut across most forms of qualitative research, this is not to say that there is an accepted, linear, standardized approach. To be sure, there are an infinite number of variations and nuances in the qualitative research process. For example, some forms of inquiry begin with a firm research question; others start without even a clear focus for study. Grounded theorists begin data analysis and interpretation very early in the research process, whereas some case study researchers, for example, may collect data in the field for a period of time before seriously considering the data and its implications. Some ethnographers may be a part of the context (e.g., observing in classrooms), but they may assume more observer-like roles, as opposed to actively participating in the context. Alternatively, action researchers, in studying issues related to their own practice, are necessarily situated toward the participant end of the participant–observer continuum.

Our focus here is on one integrated part of the qualitative research process, interpretation, the hermeneutic process of collective and individual “meaning making.” Like Willig ( 2017 ), we believe “interpretation is at the heart of qualitative research because qualitative research is concerned with meaning and the process of meaning-making … qualitative data … needs to be given meaning by the researcher” (p. 276). As we discuss throughout this chapter, researchers take a variety of approaches to interpretation in qualitative work. Four general questions guide our explorations:

What is interpretation, and why are interpretive strategies important in qualitative research?

How do methodology, data, and the researcher/self impact interpretation in qualitative research?

How do qualitative researchers engage in the process of interpretation?

In what ways can a framework for interpretation strategies support qualitative researchers across multiple methodological and paradigmatic views?

We address each of these guiding questions in our attempt to explicate our interpretation of “interpretation” and, as educational researchers, we include examples from our own work to illustrate some key concepts.

What Is Interpretation, and Why Are Interpretive Strategies Important in Qualitative Research?

Qualitative researchers and those writing about qualitative methods often intertwine the terms analysis and interpretation . For example, Hubbard and Power ( 2003 ) described data analysis as “bringing order, structure, and meaning to the data” (p. 88). To us, this description combines analysis with interpretation. Although there is nothing wrong with this construction, our understanding aligns more closely with Mills’s ( 2018 ) claim that, “put simply, analysis involves summarizing what’s in the data, whereas interpretation involves making sense of—finding meaning in—that data” (p. 176). Hesse-Biber ( 2017 ) also separated out the essential process of interpretation. She described the steps in qualitative analysis and interpretation as data preparation, data exploration, and data reduction (all part of Mills’s “analysis” processes), followed by interpretation (pp. 307–328). Willig ( 2017 ) elaborated: analysis, she claims, is “sober and systematic,” whereas interpretation is associated with “creativity and the imagination … interpretation is seen as stimulating, it is interesting and it can be illuminating” (p. 276). For the purpose of this chapter, we will adhere to Mills’s distinction, understanding analysis as summarizing and organizing and interpretation as meaning making. Unavoidably, these closely related processes overlap and interact, but our focus will be primarily on the more complex of these endeavors, interpretation. Interpretation, in this sense, is in part translation, but translation is not an objective act. Instead, translation necessarily involves selectivity and the ascribing of meaning. Qualitative researchers “aim beneath manifest behavior to the meaning events have for those who experience them” (Eisner, 1991 , p. 35). The presentation of these insider/emic perspectives, coupled with researchers’ own interpretations, is a hallmark of qualitative research.

Qualitative researchers have long borrowed from extant models for fieldwork and interpretation. Approaches from anthropology and the arts have become especially prominent. For example, Eisner’s ( 1991 ) form of qualitative inquiry, educational criticism , draws heavily on accepted models of art criticism. T. Barrett ( 2011 ), an authority on art criticism, described interpretation as a complex set of processes based on a set of principles. We believe many of these principles apply as readily to qualitative research as they do to critique. The following principles, adapted from T. Barrett’s principles of interpretation (2011), inform our examination:

Qualitative phenomena have “aboutness” : All social phenomena have meaning, but meanings in this context can be multiple, even contradictory.

Interpretations are persuasive arguments : All interpretations are arguments, and qualitative researchers, like critics, strive to build strong arguments grounded in the information, or data, available.

  Some interpretations are better than others : Barrett noted that “some interpretations are better argued, better grounded with evidence, and therefore more reasonable, more certain, and more acceptable than others.” This contradicts the argument that “all interpretations are equal,” heard in the common refrain, “Well, that’s just your interpretation.”

There can be different, competing, and contradictory interpretations of the same phenomena : As noted at the beginning of this chapter, we acknowledge that subjectivity matters, and, unavoidably, it impacts one’s interpretations. As Barrett noted, “Interpretations are often based on a worldview.”

Interpretations are not (and cannot be) “right,” but instead, they can be more or less reasonable, convincing, and informative : There is never one “true” interpretation, but some interpretations are more compelling than others.

Interpretations can be judged by coherence, correspondence, and inclusiveness : Does the argument/interpretation make sense (coherence)? Does the interpretation fit the data (correspondence)? Have all data been attended to, including outlier data that do not necessarily support identified themes (inclusiveness)?

Interpretation is ultimately a communal endeavor : Initial interpretations may be incomplete, nearsighted, and/or narrow, but eventually these interpretations become richer, broader, and more inclusive. Feminist revisionist history projects are an exemplary case. Over time, the writing, art, and cultural contributions of countless women, previously ignored, diminished, or distorted, have come to be accepted as prominent contributions given serious consideration.

So, meaning is conferred; interpretations are socially constructed arguments; multiple interpretations are to be expected; and some interpretations are better than others. As we discuss later in this chapter, what makes an interpretation “better” often hinges on the purpose/goals of the research in question. Interpretations designed to generate theory, or generalizable rules, will be better for responding to research questions aligned with the aims of more traditional quantitative/positivist research, whereas interpretations designed to construct meanings through social interaction, to generate multiple perspectives, and to represent the context-specific perspectives of the research participants are better for researchers constructing thick, contextually rich descriptions, stories, or narratives. The former relies on more atomistic interpretive strategies, whereas the latter adheres to a more holistic approach (Willis, 2007 ). Both approaches to analysis/interpretation are addressed in more detail later in this chapter.

At this point, readers might ask, Why does interpretation matter, anyway? Our response to this question involves the distinctive nature of interpretation and the ability of the interpretive process to put unique fingerprints on an otherwise relatively static set of data. Once interview data are collected and transcribed (and we realize that even the process of transcription is, in part, interpretive), documents are collected, and observations are recorded, qualitative researchers could just, in good faith and with fidelity, represent the data in as straightforward ways as possible, allowing readers to “see for themselves” by sharing as much actual data (e.g., the transcribed words of the research participants) as possible. This approach, however, includes analysis, what we have defined as summarizing and organizing data for presentation, but it falls short of what we reference and define as interpretation—attempting to explain the meaning of others’ words and actions. According to Lichtman ( 2013 ),

While early efforts at qualitative research might have stopped at description, it is now more generally accepted that a qualitative researcher goes beyond pure description.… Many believe that it is the role of the researcher to bring understanding, interpretation, and meaning. (p. 17)

Because we are fond of the arts and arts-based approaches to qualitative research, an example from the late jazz drummer, Buddy Rich, seems fitting. Rich explains the importance of having the flexibility to interpret: “I don’t think any arranger should ever write a drum part for a drummer, because if a drummer can’t create his own interpretation of the chart, and he plays everything that’s written, he becomes mechanical; he has no freedom.” The same is true for qualitative researchers: without the freedom to interpret, the researcher merely regurgitates, attempting to share with readers/reviewers exactly what the research subjects shared with him or her. It is only through interpretation that the researcher, as collaborator with unavoidable subjectivities, is able to construct unique, contextualized meaning. Interpretation, then, in this sense, is knowledge construction.

In closing this section, we will illustrate the analysis-versus-interpretation distinction with the following transcript excerpt. In this study, the authors (Trent & Zorko, 2006 ) were studying student teaching from the perspective of K–12 students. This quote comes from a high school student in a focus group interview. She is describing a student teacher she had:

The right-hand column contains codes or labels applied to parts of the transcript text. Coding will be discussed in more depth later in this chapter, but for now, note that the codes are mostly summarizing the main ideas of the text, sometimes using the exact words of the research participant. This type of coding is a part of what we have called analysis—organizing and summarizing the data. It is a way of beginning to say “what is” there. As noted, though, most qualitative researchers go deeper. They want to know more than what is; they also ask, What does it mean? This is a question of interpretation.

Specific to the transcript excerpt, researchers might next begin to cluster the early codes into like groups. For example, the teacher “felt targeted,” “assumed kids were going to behave inappropriately,” and appeared to be “overwhelmed.” A researcher might cluster this group of codes in a category called “teacher feelings and perceptions” and may then cluster the codes “could not control class” and “students off task” into a category called “classroom management.” The researcher then, in taking a fresh look at these categories and the included codes, may begin to conclude that what is going on in this situation is that the student teacher does not have sufficient training in classroom management models and strategies and may also be lacking the skills she needs to build relationships with her students. These then would be interpretations, persuasive arguments connected to the study’s data. In this specific example, the researchers might proceed to write a memo about these emerging interpretations. In this memo, they might more clearly define their early categories and may also look through other data to see if there are other codes or categories that align with or overlap this initial analysis. They may write further about their emergent interpretations and, in doing so, may inform future data collection in ways that will allow them to either support or refute their early interpretations. These researchers will also likely find that the processes of analysis and interpretation are inextricably intertwined. Good interpretations very often depend on thorough and thoughtful analyses.

How Do Methodology, Data, and the Researcher/Self Impact Interpretation in Qualitative Research?

Methodological conventions guide interpretation and the use of interpretive strategies. For example, in grounded theory and in similar methodological traditions, “formal analysis begins early in the study and is nearly completed by the end of data collection” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007 , p. 73). Alternatively, for researchers from other traditions, for example, case study researchers, “formal analysis and theory development [interpretation] do not occur until after the data collection is near complete” (p. 73).

Researchers subscribing to methodologies that prescribe early data analysis and interpretation may employ methods like analytic induction or the constant comparison method. In using analytic induction, researchers develop a rough definition of the phenomena under study; collect data to compare to this rough definition; modify the definition as needed, based on cases that both fit and do not fit the definition; and, finally, establish a clear, universal definition (theory) of the phenomena (Robinson, 1951, cited in Bogdan & Biklen, 2007 , p. 73). Generally, those using a constant comparison approach begin data collection immediately; identify key issues, events, and activities related to the study that then become categories of focus; collect data that provide incidents of these categories; write about and describe the categories, accounting for specific incidents and seeking others; discover basic processes and relationships; and, finally, code and write about the categories as theory, “grounded” in the data (Glaser, 1965 ). Although processes like analytic induction and constant comparison can be listed as steps to follow, in actuality, these are more typically recursive processes in which the researcher repeatedly goes back and forth between the data and emerging analyses and interpretations.

In addition to methodological conventions that prescribe data analysis early (e.g., grounded theory) or later (e.g., case study) in the inquiry process, methodological approaches also impact the general approach to analysis and interpretation. Ellingson ( 2011 ) situated qualitative research methodologies on a continuum spanning “science”-like approaches on one end juxtaposed with “art”-like approaches on the other.

Researchers pursuing a more science-oriented approach seek valid, reliable, generalizable knowledge; believe in neutral, objective researchers; and ultimately claim single, authoritative interpretations. Researchers adhering to these science-focused, postpositivistic approaches may count frequencies, emphasize the validity of the employed coding system, and point to intercoder reliability and random sampling as criteria that bolster the research credibility. Researchers at or near the science end of the continuum might employ analysis and interpretation strategies that include “paired comparisons,” “pile sorts,” “word counts,” identifying “key words in context,” and “triad tests” (Bernard, Wutich, & Ryan, 2017 , pp. 112, 381, 113, 170). These researchers may ultimately seek to develop taxonomies or other authoritative final products that organize and explain the collected data.

For example, in a study we conducted about preservice teachers’ experiences learning to teach second-language learners, the researchers collected larger data sets and used a statistical analysis package to analyze survey data, and the resultant findings included descriptive statistics. These survey results were supported with open-ended, qualitative data. For example, one of the study’s findings was that “a strong majority of candidates (96%) agreed that an immersion approach alone will not guarantee academic or linguistic success for second language learners.” In narrative explanations, one preservice teacher, representative of many others, remarked, “There has to be extra instructional efforts to help their students learn English … they won’t learn English by merely sitting in the classrooms” (Cho, Rios, Trent, & Mayfield, 2012 , p. 75).

Methodologies on the art side of Ellingson’s ( 2011 ) continuum, alternatively, “value humanistic, openly subjective knowledge, such as that embodied in stories, poetry, photography, and painting” (p. 599). Analysis and interpretation in these (often more contemporary) methodological approaches do not strive for “social scientific truth,” but instead are formulated to “enable us to learn about ourselves, each other, and the world through encountering the unique lens of a person’s (or a group’s) passionate rendering of a reality into a moving, aesthetic expression of meaning” (p. 599). For these “artistic/interpretivists, truths are multiple, fluctuating and ambiguous” (p. 599). Methodologies taking more subjective approaches to analysis and interpretation include autoethnography, testimonio, performance studies, feminist theorists/researchers, and others from related critical methodological forms of qualitative practice. More specifically arts-based approaches include poetic inquiry, fiction-based research, music as method, and dance and movement as inquiry (Leavy, 2017 ). Interpretation in these approaches is inherent. For example, “ interpretive poetry is understood as a method of merging the participant’s words with the researcher’s perspective” (Leavy, 2017 , p. 82).

As an example, one of us engaged in an artistic inquiry with a group of students in an art class for elementary teachers. We called it “Dreams as Data” and, among the project aims, we wanted to gather participants’ “dreams for education in the future” and display these dreams in an accessible, interactive, artistic display (see Trent, 2002 ). The intent was not to statistically analyze the dreams/data; instead, it was more universal. We wanted, as Ellingson ( 2011 , p. 599) noted, to use participant responses in ways that “enable us to learn about ourselves, each other, and the world.” The decision was made to leave responses intact and to share the whole/raw data set in the artistic display in ways that allowed the viewers to holistically analyze and interpret for themselves. Additionally, the researcher (Trent, 2002 ) collaborated with his students to construct their own contextually situated interpretations of the data. The following text is an excerpt from one participant’s response:

Almost a century ago, John Dewey eloquently wrote about the need to imagine and create the education that ALL children deserve, not just the richest, the Whitest, or the easiest to teach. At the dawn of this new century, on some mornings, I wake up fearful that we are further away from this ideal than ever.… Collective action, in a critical, hopeful, joyful, anti-racist and pro-justice spirit, is foremost in my mind as I reflect on and act in my daily work.… Although I realize the constraints on teachers and schools in the current political arena, I do believe in the power of teachers to stand next to, encourage, and believe in the students they teach—in short, to change lives. (Trent, 2002 , p. 49)

In sum, researchers whom Ellingson ( 2011 ) characterized as being on the science end of the continuum typically use more detailed or atomistic strategies to analyze and interpret qualitative data, whereas those toward the artistic end most often employ more holistic strategies. Both general approaches to qualitative data analysis and interpretation, atomistic and holistic, will be addressed later in this chapter.

As noted, qualitative researchers attend to data in a wide variety of ways depending on paradigmatic and epistemological beliefs, methodological conventions, and the purpose/aims of the research. These factors impact the kinds of data collected and the ways these data are ultimately analyzed and interpreted. For example, life history or testimonio researchers conduct extensive individual interviews, ethnographers record detailed observational notes, critical theorists may examine documents from pop culture, and ethnomethodologists may collect videotapes of interaction for analysis and interpretation.

In addition to the wide range of data types that are collected by qualitative researchers (and most qualitative researchers collect multiple forms of data), qualitative researchers, again influenced by the factors noted earlier, employ a variety of approaches to analyzing and interpreting data. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, some advocate for a detailed/atomistic, fine-grained approach to data (see, e.g., Bernard et al., 2017 ); others prefer a more broad-based, holistic, “eyeballing” of the data. According to Willis ( 2007 ), “Eyeballers reject the more structured approaches to analysis that break down the data into small units and, from the perspective of the eyeballers, destroy the wholeness and some of the meaningfulness of the data” (p. 298).

Regardless, we assert, as illustrated in Figure 31.1 , that as the process evolves, data collection becomes less prominent later in the process, as interpretation and making sense/meaning of the data becomes more prominent. It is through this emphasis on interpretation that qualitative researchers put their individual imprints on the data, allowing for the emergence of multiple, rich perspectives. This space for interpretation allows researchers the freedom Buddy Rich alluded to in his quote about interpreting musical charts. Without this freedom, Rich noted that the process would simply be “mechanical.” Furthermore, allowing space for multiple interpretations nourishes the perspectives of many others in the community. Writer and theorist Meg Wheatley explained, “Everyone in a complex system has a slightly different interpretation. The more interpretations we gather, the easier it becomes to gain a sense of the whole.” In qualitative research, “there is no ‘getting it right’ because there could be many ‘rights’ ” (as cited in Lichtman, 2013 ).

Increasing Role of Interpretation in Data Analysis

In addition to the roles methodology and data play in the interpretive process, perhaps the most important is the role of the self/the researcher in the interpretive process. According to Lichtman ( 2013 ), “Data are collected, information is gathered, settings are viewed, and realities are constructed through his or her eyes and ears … the qualitative researcher interprets and makes sense of the data” (p. 21). Eisner ( 1991 ) supported the notion of the researcher “self as instrument,” noting that expert researchers know not simply what to attend to, but also what to neglect. He describes the researcher’s role in the interpretive process as combining sensibility , the ability to observe and ascertain nuances, with schema , a deep understanding or cognitive framework of the phenomena under study.

J. Barrett ( 2007 ) described self/researcher roles as “transformations” (p. 418) at multiple points throughout the inquiry process: early in the process, researchers create representations through data generation, conducting observations and interviews and collecting documents and artifacts. Then,

transformation occurs when the “raw” data generated in the field are shaped into data records by the researcher. These data records are produced through organizing and reconstructing the researcher’s notes and transcribing audio and video recordings in the form of permanent records that serve as the “evidentiary warrants” of the generated data. The researcher strives to capture aspects of the phenomenal world with fidelity by selecting salient aspects to incorporate into the data record. (J. Barrett, 2007 , p. 418)

Transformation continues when the researcher codes, categorizes, and explores patterns in the data (the process we call analysis).

Transformations also involve interpreting what the data mean and relating these interpretations to other sources of insight about the phenomena, including findings from related research, conceptual literature, and common experience.… Data analysis and interpretation are often intertwined and rely upon the researcher’s logic, artistry, imagination, clarity, and knowledge of the field under study. (J. Barrett, 2007 , p. 418)

We mentioned the often-blended roles of participation and observation earlier in this chapter. The role(s) of the self/researcher are often described as points along a participant–observer continuum (see, e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 2007 ). On the far observer end of this continuum, the researcher situates as detached, tries to be inconspicuous (so as not to impact/disrupt the phenomena under study), and approaches the studied context as if viewing it from behind a one-way mirror. On the opposite, participant end, the researcher is completely immersed and involved in the context. It would be difficult for an outsider to distinguish between researcher and subjects. For example, “some feminist researchers and postmodernists take a political stance and have an agenda that places the researcher in an activist posture. These researchers often become quite involved with the individuals they study and try to improve their human condition” (Lichtman, 2013 , p. 17).

We assert that most researchers fall somewhere between these poles. We believe that complete detachment is both impossible and misguided. In doing so, we, along with many others, acknowledge (and honor) the role of subjectivity, the researcher’s beliefs, opinions, biases, and predispositions. Positivist researchers seeking objective data and accounts either ignore the impact of subjectivity or attempt to drastically diminish/eliminate its impact. Even qualitative researchers have developed methods to avoid researcher subjectivity affecting research data collection, analysis, and interpretation. For example, foundational phenomenologist Husserl ( 1913/1962 ) developed the concept of bracketing , what Lichtman describes as “trying to identify your views on the topic and then putting them aside” (2013, p. 22). Like Slotnick and Janesick ( 2011 ), we ultimately claim “it is impossible to bracket yourself” (p. 1358). Instead, we take a balanced approach, like Eisner, understanding that subjectivity allows researchers to produce the rich, idiosyncratic, insightful, and yet data-based interpretations and accounts of lived experience that accomplish the primary purposes of qualitative inquiry. Eisner ( 1991 ) wrote, “Rather than regarding uniformity and standardization as the summum bonum, educational criticism [Eisner’s form of qualitative research] views unique insight as the higher good” (p. 35). That said, we also claim that, just because we acknowledge and value the role of researcher subjectivity, researchers are still obligated to ground their findings in reasonable interpretations of the data. Eisner ( 1991 ) explained:

This appreciation for personal insight as a source of meaning does not provide a license for freedom. Educational critics must provide evidence and reasons. But they reject the assumption that unique interpretation is a conceptual liability in understanding, and they see the insights secured from multiple views as more attractive than the comforts provided by a single right one. (p. 35)

Connected to this participant–observer continuum is the way the researcher positions him- or herself in relation to the “subjects” of the study. Traditionally, researchers, including early qualitative researchers, anthropologists, and ethnographers, referenced those studied as subjects . More recently, qualitative researchers better understand that research should be a reciprocal process in which both researcher and the foci of the research should derive meaningful benefit. Researchers aligned with this thinking frequently use the term participants to describe those groups and individuals included in a study. Going a step further, some researchers view research participants as experts on the studied topic and as equal collaborators in the meaning-making process. In these instances, researchers often use the terms co-researchers or co-investigators .

The qualitative researcher, then, plays significant roles throughout the inquiry process. These roles include transforming data, collaborating with research participants or co-researchers, determining appropriate points to situate along the participant–observer continuum, and ascribing personal insights, meanings, and interpretations that are both unique and justified with data exemplars. Performing these roles unavoidably impacts and changes the researcher. Slotnick and Janesick ( 2011 ) noted, “Since, in qualitative research the individual is the research instrument through which all data are passed, interpreted, and reported, the scholar’s role is constantly evolving as self evolves” (p. 1358).

As we note later, key in all this is for researchers to be transparent about the topics discussed in the preceding section: What methodological conventions have been employed and why? How have data been treated throughout the inquiry to arrive at assertions and findings that may or may not be transferable to other idiosyncratic contexts? And, finally, in what ways has the researcher/self been situated in and impacted the inquiry? Unavoidably, we assert, the self lies at the critical intersection of data and theory, and, as such, two legs of this stool, data and researcher, interact to create the third, theory.

How Do Qualitative Researchers Engage in the Process of Interpretation?

Theorists seem to have a propensity to dichotomize concepts, pulling them apart and placing binary opposites on the far ends of conceptual continuums. Qualitative research theorists are no different, and we have already mentioned some of these continua in this chapter. For example, in the previous section, we discussed the participant–observer continuum. Earlier, we referenced both Willis’s ( 2007 ) conceptualization of atomistic versus holistic approaches to qualitative analysis and interpretation and Ellingson’s ( 2011 ) science–art continuum. Each of these latter two conceptualizations inform how qualitative researchers engage in the process of interpretation.

Willis ( 2007 ) shared that the purpose of a qualitative project might be explained as “what we expect to gain from research” (p. 288). The purpose, or what we expect to gain, then guides and informs the approaches researchers might take to interpretation. Some researchers, typically positivist/postpositivist, conduct studies that aim to test theories about how the world works and/or how people behave. These researchers attempt to discover general laws, truths, or relationships that can be generalized. Others, less confident in the ability of research to attain a single, generalizable law or truth, might seek “local theory.” These researchers still seek truths, but “instead of generalizable laws or rules, they search for truths about the local context … to understand what is really happening and then to communicate the essence of this to others” (Willis, 2007 , p. 291). In both these purposes, researchers employ atomistic strategies in an inductive process in which researchers “break the data down into small units and then build broader and broader generalizations as the data analysis proceeds” (p. 317). The earlier mentioned processes of analytic induction, constant comparison, and grounded theory fit within this conceptualization of atomistic approaches to interpretation. For example, a line-by-line coding of a transcript might begin an atomistic approach to data analysis.

Alternatively, other researchers pursue distinctly different aims. Researchers with an objective description purpose focus on accurately describing the people and context under study. These researchers adhere to standards and practices designed to achieve objectivity, and their approach to interpretation falls within the binary atomistic/holistic distinction.

The purpose of hermeneutic approaches to research is to “understand the perspectives of humans. And because understanding is situational, hermeneutic research tends to look at the details of the context in which the study occurred. The result is generally rich data reports that include multiple perspectives” (Willis, 2007 , p. 293).

Still other researchers see their purpose as the creation of stories or narratives that utilize “a social process that constructs meaning through interaction … it is an effort to represent in detail the perspectives of participants … whereas description produces one truth about the topic of study, storytelling may generate multiple perspectives, interpretations, and analyses by the researcher and participants” (Willis, 2007 , p. 295).

In these latter purposes (hermeneutic, storytelling, narrative production), researchers typically employ more holistic strategies. According to Willis ( 2007 ), “Holistic approaches tend to leave the data intact and to emphasize that meaning must be derived for a contextual reading of the data rather than the extraction of data segments for detailed analysis” (p. 297). This was the case with the Dreams as Data project mentioned earlier.

We understand the propensity to dichotomize, situate concepts as binary opposites, and create neat continua between these polar descriptors. These sorts of reduction and deconstruction support our understandings and, hopefully, enable us to eventually reconstruct these ideas in meaningful ways. Still, in reality, we realize most of us will, and should, work in the middle of these conceptualizations in fluid ways that allow us to pursue strategies, processes, and theories most appropriate for the research task at hand. As noted, Ellingson ( 2011 ) set up another conceptual continuum, but, like ours, her advice was to “straddle multiple points across the field of qualitative methods” (p. 595). She explained, “I make the case for qualitative methods to be conceptualized as a continuum anchored by art and science, with vast middle spaces that embody infinite possibilities for blending artistic, expository, and social scientific ways of analysis and representation” (p. 595).

We explained at the beginning of this chapter that we view analysis as organizing and summarizing qualitative data and interpretation as constructing meaning. In this sense, analysis allows us to describe the phenomena under study. It enables us to succinctly answer what and how questions and ensures that our descriptions are grounded in the data collected. Descriptions, however, rarely respond to questions of why . Why questions are the domain of interpretation, and, as noted throughout this text, interpretation is complex. Gubrium and Holstein ( 2000 ) noted, “Traditionally, qualitative inquiry has concerned itself with what and how questions … qualitative researchers typically approach why questions cautiously, explanation is tricky business” (p. 502). Eisner ( 1991 ) described this distinctive nature of interpretation: “It means that inquirers try to account for [interpretation] what they have given account of ” (p. 35).

Our focus here is on interpretation, but interpretation requires analysis, because without clear understandings of the data and its characteristics, derived through systematic examination and organization (e.g., coding, memoing, categorizing), “interpretations” resulting from inquiry will likely be incomplete, uninformed, and inconsistent with the constructed perspectives of the study participants. Fortunately for qualitative researchers, we have many sources that lead us through analytic processes. We earlier mentioned the accepted processes of analytic induction and the constant comparison method. These detailed processes (see, e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 2007 ) combine the inextricably linked activities of analysis and interpretation, with analysis more typically appearing as earlier steps in the process and meaning construction—interpretation—happening later.

A wide variety of resources support researchers engaged in the processes of analysis and interpretation. Saldaña ( 2011 ), for example, provided a detailed description of coding types and processes. He showed researchers how to use process coding (uses gerunds, “-ing” words to capture action), in vivo coding (uses the actual words of the research participants/ subjects), descriptive coding (uses nouns to summarize the data topics), versus coding (uses “vs” to identify conflicts and power issues), and values coding (identifies participants’ values, attitudes, and/or beliefs). To exemplify some of these coding strategies, we include an excerpt from a transcript of a meeting of a school improvement committee. In this study, the collaborators were focused on building “school community.” This excerpt illustrates the application of a variety of codes described by Saldaña to this text:

To connect and elaborate the ideas developed in coding, Saldaña ( 2011 ) suggested researchers categorize the applied codes, write memos to deepen understandings and illuminate additional questions, and identify emergent themes. To begin the categorization process, Saldaña recommended all codes be “classified into similar clusters … once the codes have been classified, a category label is applied to them” (p. 97). So, in continuing with the study of school community example coded here, the researcher might create a cluster/category called “Value of Collaboration” and in this category might include the codes “relationships,” “building community,” and “effective strategies.”

Having coded and categorized a study’s various data forms, a typical next step for researchers is to write memos or analytic memos . Writing analytic memos allows the researcher(s) to

set in words your interpretation of the data … an analytic memo further articulates your … thinking processes on what things may mean … as the study proceeds, however, initial and substantive analytic memos can be revisited and revised for eventual integration into the report itself. (Saldaña, 2011 , p. 98)

In the study of student teaching from K–12 students’ perspectives (Trent & Zorko, 2006 ), we noticed throughout our analysis a series of focus group interview quotes coded “names.” The following quote from a high school student is representative of many others:

I think that, ah, they [student teachers] should like know your face and your name because, uh, I don’t like it if they don’t and they’ll just like … cause they’ll blow you off a lot easier if they don’t know, like our new principal is here … he is, like, he always, like, tries to make sure to say hi even to the, like, not popular people if you can call it that, you know, and I mean, yah, and the people that don’t usually socialize a lot, I mean he makes an effort to know them and know their name like so they will cooperate better with him.

Although we did not ask the focus groups a specific question about whether student teachers knew the K–12 students’ names, the topic came up in every focus group interview. We coded the above excerpt and the others “knowing names,” and these data were grouped with others under the category “relationships.” In an initial analytic memo about this, the researchers wrote,

STUDENT TEACHING STUDY—MEMO #3 “Knowing Names as Relationship Building” Most groups made unsolicited mentions of student teachers knowing, or not knowing, their names. We haven’t asked students about this, but it must be important to them because it always seems to come up. Students expected student teachers to know their names. When they did, students noticed and seemed pleased. When they didn’t, students seemed disappointed, even annoyed. An elementary student told us that early in the semester, “she knew our names … cause when we rose [sic] our hands, she didn’t have to come and look at our name tags … it made me feel very happy.” A high schooler, expressing displeasure that his student teacher didn’t know students’ names, told us, “They should like know your name because it shows they care about you as a person. I mean, we know their names, so they should take the time to learn ours too.” Another high school student said that even after 3 months, she wasn’t sure the student teacher knew her name. Another student echoed, “Same here.” Each of these students asserted that this (knowing students’ names) had impacted their relationship with the student teacher. This high school student focus group stressed that a good relationship, built early, directly impacts classroom interaction and student learning. A student explained it like this: “If you get to know each other, you can have fun with them … they seem to understand you more, you’re more relaxed, and learning seems easier.”

As noted in these brief examples, coding, categorizing, and writing memos about a study’s data are all accepted processes for data analysis and allow researchers to begin constructing new understandings and forming interpretations of the studied phenomena. We find the qualitative research literature to be particularly strong in offering support and guidance for researchers engaged in these analytic practices. In addition to those already noted in this chapter, we have found the following resources provide practical, yet theoretically grounded approaches to qualitative data analysis. For more detailed, procedural, or atomistic approaches to data analysis, we direct researchers to Miles and Huberman’s classic 1994 text, Qualitative Data Analysis , and Bernard et al.’s 2017 book Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. For analysis and interpretation strategies falling somewhere between the atomistic and holistic poles, we suggest Hesse-Biber and Leavy’s ( 2011 ) chapter, “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data,” in their book, The Practice of Qualitative Research (second edition); Lichtman’s chapter, “Making Meaning From Your Data,” in her 2013 book Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide (third edition); and “Processing Fieldnotes: Coding and Memoing,” a chapter in Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw’s ( 1995 ) book, Writing Ethnographic Fieldwork . Each of these sources succinctly describes the processes of data preparation, data reduction, coding and categorizing data, and writing memos about emergent ideas and findings. For more holistic approaches, we have found Denzin and Lincoln’s ( 2007 ) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials and Ellis and Bochner’s ( 2000 ) chapter “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity” to both be very informative. Finally, Leavy’s 2017 book, Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice , provides support and guidance to researchers engaged in arts-based research.

Even after reviewing the multiple resources for treating data included here, qualitative researchers might still be wondering, But exactly how do we interpret? In the remainder of this section and in the concluding section of this chapter, we more concretely provide responses to this question and, in closing, we propose a framework for researchers to utilize as they engage in the complex, ambiguous, and yet exciting process of constructing meanings and new understandings from qualitative sources.

These meanings and understandings are often presented as theory, but theories in this sense should be viewed more as “guides to perception” as opposed to “devices that lead to the tight control or precise prediction of events” (Eisner, 1991 , p. 95). Perhaps Erickson’s ( 1986 ) concept of assertions is a more appropriate aim for qualitative researchers. He claimed that assertions are declarative statements; they include a summary of the new understandings, and they are supported by evidence/data. These assertions are open to revision and are revised when disconfirming evidence requires modification. Assertions, theories, or other explanations resulting from interpretation in research are typically presented as “findings” in written research reports. Belgrave and Smith ( 2002 ) emphasized the importance of these interpretations (as opposed to descriptions): “The core of the report is not the events reported by the respondent, but rather the subjective meaning of the reported events for the respondent” (p. 248).

Mills ( 2018 ) viewed interpretation as responding to the question, So what? He provided researchers a series of concrete strategies for both analysis and interpretation. Specific to interpretation, Mills (pp. 204–207) suggested a variety of techniques, including the following:

“ Extend the analysis ”: In doing so, researchers ask additional questions about the research. The data appear to say X , but could it be otherwise? In what ways do the data support emergent finding X ? And, in what ways do they not?

“ Connect findings with personal experience ”: Using this technique, researchers share interpretations based on their intimate knowledge of the context, the observed actions of the individuals in the studied context, and the data points that support emerging interpretations, as well as their awareness of discrepant events or outlier data. In a sense, the researcher is saying, “Based on my experiences in conducting this study, this is what I make of it all.”

“ Seek the advice of ‘critical’ friends ”: In doing so, researchers utilize trusted colleagues, fellow researchers, experts in the field of study, and others to offer insights, alternative interpretations, and the application of their own unique lenses to a researcher’s initial findings. We especially like this strategy because we acknowledge that, too often, qualitative interpretation is a “solo” affair.

“ Contextualize findings in the literature ”: This allows researchers to compare their interpretations to those of others writing about and studying the same/similar phenomena. The results of this contextualization may be that the current study’s findings correspond with the findings of other researchers. The results might, alternatively, differ from the findings of other researchers. In either instance, the researcher can highlight his or her unique contributions to our understanding of the topic under study.

“ Turn to theory ”: Mills defined theory as “an analytical and interpretive framework that helps the researcher make sense of ‘what is going on’ in the social setting being studied.” In turning to theory, researchers search for increasing levels of abstraction and move beyond purely descriptive accounts. Connecting to extant or generating new theory enables researchers to link their work to the broader contemporary issues in the field.

Other theorists offer additional advice for researchers engaged in the act of interpretation. Richardson ( 1995 ) reminded us to account for the power dynamics in the researcher–researched relationship and notes that, in doing so, we can allow for oppressed and marginalized voices to be heard in context. Bogdan and Biklen ( 2007 ) suggested that researchers engaged in interpretation revisit foundational writing about qualitative research, read studies related to the current research, ask evaluative questions (e.g., Is what I’m seeing here good or bad?), ask about implications of particular findings/interpretations, think about the audience for interpretations, look for stories and incidents that illustrate a specific finding/interpretation, and attempt to summarize key interpretations in a succinct paragraph. All these suggestions can be pertinent in certain situations and with particular methodological approaches. In the next and closing section of this chapter, we present a framework for interpretive strategies we believe will support, guide, and be applicable to qualitative researchers across multiple methodologies and paradigms.

In What Ways Can a Framework for Interpretation Strategies Support Qualitative Researchers across Multiple Methodological and Paradigmatic Views?

The process of qualitative research is often compared to a journey, one without a detailed itinerary and ending, but with general direction and aims and yet an open-endedness that adds excitement and thrives on curiosity. Qualitative researchers are travelers. They travel physically to field sites; they travel mentally through various epistemological, theoretical, and methodological grounds; they travel through a series of problem-finding, access, data collection, and data analysis processes; and, finally—the topic of this chapter—they travel through the process of making meaning of all this physical and cognitive travel via interpretation.

Although travel is an appropriate metaphor to describe the journey of qualitative researchers, we will also use “travel” to symbolize a framework for qualitative research interpretation strategies. By design, this framework applies across multiple paradigmatic, epistemological, and methodological traditions. The application of this framework is not formulaic or highly prescriptive; it is also not an anything-goes approach. It falls, and is applicable, between these poles, giving concrete (suggested) direction to qualitative researchers wanting to make the most of the interpretations that result from their research and yet allowing the necessary flexibility for researchers to employ the methods, theories, and approaches they deem most appropriate to the research problem(s) under study.

TRAVEL, a Comprehensive Approach to Qualitative Interpretation

In using the word TRAVEL as a mnemonic device, our aim is to highlight six essential concepts we argue all qualitative researchers should attend to in the interpretive process: transparency, reflexivity, analysis, validity, evidence, and literature. The importance of each is addressed here.

Transparency , as a research concept seems, well, transparent. But, too often, we read qualitative research reports and are left with many questions: How were research participants and the topic of study selected/excluded? How were the data collected, when, and for how long? Who analyzed and interpreted these data? A single researcher? Multiple? What interpretive strategies were employed? Are there data points that substantiate these interpretations/findings? What analytic procedures were used to organize the data prior to making the presented interpretations? In being transparent about data collection, analysis, and interpretation processes, researchers allow reviewers/readers insight into the research endeavor, and this transparency leads to credibility for both researcher and researcher’s claims. Altheide and Johnson ( 2011 ) explained,

There is great diversity of qualitative research.… While these approaches differ, they also share an ethical obligation to make public their claims, to show the reader, audience, or consumer why they should be trusted as faithful accounts of some phenomenon. (p. 584)

This includes, they noted, articulating

what the different sources of data were, how they were interwoven, and … how subsequent interpretations and conclusions are more or less closely tied to the various data … the main concern is that the connection be apparent, and to the extent possible, transparent. (p. 590)

In the Dreams as Data art and research project noted earlier, transparency was addressed in multiple ways. Readers of the project write-up were informed that interpretations resulting from the study, framed as themes , were a result of collaborative analysis that included insights from both students and instructor. Viewers of the art installation/data display had the rare opportunity to see all participant responses. In other words, viewers had access to the entire raw data set (see Trent, 2002 ). More frequently, we encounter only research “findings” already distilled, analyzed, and interpreted in research accounts, often by a single researcher. Allowing research consumers access to the data to interpret for themselves in the Dreams project was an intentional attempt at transparency.

Reflexivity , the second of our concepts for interpretive researcher consideration, has garnered a great deal of attention in qualitative research literature. Some have called this increased attention the reflexive turn (see, e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2004 ).

Although you can find many meanings for the term reflexivity, it is usually associated with a critical reflection on the practice and process of research and the role of the researcher. It concerns itself with the impact of the researcher on the system and the system on the researcher. It acknowledges the mutual relationships between the researcher and who and what is studied … by acknowledging the role of the self in qualitative research, the researcher is able to sort through biases and think about how they affect various aspects of the research, especially interpretation of meanings. (Lichtman, 2013 , p. 165)

As with transparency, attending to reflexivity allows researchers to attach credibility to presented findings. Providing a reflexive account of researcher subjectivity and the interactions of this subjectivity within the research process is a way for researchers to communicate openly with their audience. Instead of trying to exhume inherent bias from the process, qualitative researchers share with readers the value of having a specific, idiosyncratic positionality. As a result, situated, contextualized interpretations are viewed as an asset, as opposed to a liability.

LaBanca ( 2011 ), acknowledging the often solitary nature of qualitative research, called for researchers to engage others in the reflexive process. Like many other researchers, LaBanca utilized a researcher journal to chronicle reflexive thoughts, explorations, and understandings, but he took it a step farther. Realizing the value of others’ input, LaBanca posts his reflexive journal entries on a blog (what he calls an online reflexivity blog ) and invites critical friends, other researchers, and interested members of the community to audit his reflexive moves, providing insights, questions, and critique that inform his research and study interpretations.

We agree this is a novel approach worth considering. We, too, understand that multiple interpreters will undoubtedly produce multiple interpretations, a richness of qualitative research. So, we suggest researchers consider bringing others in before the production of the report. This could be fruitful in multiple stages of the inquiry process, but especially in the complex, idiosyncratic processes of reflexivity and interpretation. We are both educators and educational researchers. Historically, each of these roles has tended to be constructed as an isolated endeavor, the solitary teacher, the solo researcher/fieldworker. As noted earlier and in the analysis section that follows, introducing collaborative processes to what has often been a solitary activity offers much promise for generating rich interpretations that benefit from multiple perspectives.

Being consciously reflexive throughout our practice as researchers has benefitted us in many ways. In a study of teacher education curricula designed to prepare preservice teachers to support second-language learners, we realized hard truths that caused us to reflect on and adapt our own practices as teacher educators. Reflexivity can inform a researcher at all parts of the inquiry, even in early stages. For example, one of us was beginning a study of instructional practices in an elementary school. The communicated methods of the study indicated that the researcher would be largely an observer. Early fieldwork revealed that the researcher became much more involved as a participant than anticipated. Deep reflection and writing about the classroom interactions allowed the researcher to realize that the initial purpose of the research was not being accomplished, and the researcher believed he was having a negative impact on the classroom culture. Reflexivity in this instance prompted the researcher to leave the field and abandon the project as it was just beginning. Researchers should plan to openly engage in reflexive activities, including writing about their ongoing reflections and subjectivities. Including excerpts of this writing in research account supports our earlier recommendation of transparency.

Early in this chapter, for the purposes of discussion and examination, we defined analysis as “summarizing and organizing” data in a qualitative study and interpretation as “meaning making.” Although our focus has been on interpretation as the primary topic, the importance of good analysis cannot be underestimated, because without it, resultant interpretations are likely incomplete and potentially uninformed. Comprehensive analysis puts researchers in a position to be deeply familiar with collected data and to organize these data into forms that lead to rich, unique interpretations, and yet interpretations that are clearly connected to data exemplars. Although we find it advantageous to examine analysis and interpretation as different but related practices, in reality, the lines blur as qualitative researchers engage in these recursive processes.

We earlier noted our affinity for a variety of approaches to analysis (see, e.g., Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 ; Lichtman, 2013 ; or Saldaña, 2011 ). Emerson et al. ( 1995 ) presented a grounded approach to qualitative data analysis: In early stages, researchers engage in a close, line-by-line reading of data/collected text and accompany this reading with open coding , a process of categorizing and labeling the inquiry data. Next, researchers write initial memos to describe and organize the data under analysis. These analytic phases allow the researcher(s) to prepare, organize, summarize, and understand the data, in preparation for the more interpretive processes of focused coding and the writing up of interpretations and themes in the form of integrative memos .

Similarly, Mills ( 2018 ) provided guidance on the process of analysis for qualitative action researchers. His suggestions for organizing and summarizing data include coding (labeling data and looking for patterns); identifying themes by considering the big picture while looking for recurrent phrases, descriptions, or topics; asking key questions about the study data (who, what, where, when, why, and how); developing concept maps (graphic organizers that show initial organization and relationships in the data); and stating what’s missing by articulating what data are not present (pp. 179–189).

Many theorists, like Emerson et al. ( 1995 ) and Mills ( 2018 ) noted here, provide guidance for individual researchers engaged in individual data collection, analysis, and interpretation; others, however, invite us to consider the benefits of collaboratively engaging in these processes through the use of collaborative research and analysis teams. Paulus, Woodside, and Ziegler ( 2008 ) wrote about their experiences in collaborative qualitative research: “Collaborative research often refers to collaboration among the researcher and the participants. Few studies investigate the collaborative process among researchers themselves” (p. 226).

Paulus et al. ( 2008 ) claimed that the collaborative process “challenged and transformed our assumptions about qualitative research” (p. 226). Engaging in reflexivity, analysis, and interpretation as a collaborative enabled these researchers to reframe their views about the research process, finding that the process was much more recursive, as opposed to following a linear progression. They also found that cooperatively analyzing and interpreting data yielded “collaboratively constructed meanings” as opposed to “individual discoveries.” And finally, instead of the traditional “individual products” resulting from solo research, collaborative interpretation allowed researchers to participate in an “ongoing conversation” (p. 226).

These researchers explained that engaging in collaborative analysis and interpretation of qualitative data challenged their previously held assumptions. They noted,

through collaboration, procedures are likely to be transparent to the group and can, therefore, be made public. Data analysis benefits from an iterative, dialogic, and collaborative process because thinking is made explicit in a way that is difficult to replicate as a single researcher. (Paulus et al., 2008 , p. 236)

They shared that, during the collaborative process, “we constantly checked our interpretation against the text, the context, prior interpretations, and each other’s interpretations” (p. 234).

We, too, have engaged in analysis similar to these described processes, including working on research teams. We encourage other researchers to find processes that fit with the methodology and data of a particular study, use the techniques and strategies most appropriate, and then cite the utilized authority to justify the selected path. We urge traditionally solo researchers to consider trying a collaborative approach. Generally, we suggest researchers be familiar with a wide repertoire of practices. In doing so, they will be in better positions to select and use strategies most appropriate for their studies and data. Succinctly preparing, organizing, categorizing, and summarizing data sets the researcher(s) up to construct meaningful interpretations in the forms of assertions, findings, themes, and theories.

Researchers want their findings to be sound, backed by evidence, and justifiable and to accurately represent the phenomena under study. In short, researchers seek validity for their work. We assert that qualitative researchers should attend to validity concepts as a part of their interpretive practices. We have previously written and theorized about validity, and, in doing so, we have highlighted and labeled what we consider two distinctly different approaches, transactional and transformational (Cho & Trent, 2006 ). We define transactional validity in qualitative research as an interactive process occurring among the researcher, the researched, and the collected data, one that is aimed at achieving a relatively higher level of accuracy. Techniques, methods, and/or strategies are employed during the conduct of the inquiry. These techniques, such as member checking and triangulation, are seen as a medium with which to ensure an accurate reflection of reality (or, at least, participants’ constructions of reality). Lincoln and Guba’s ( 1985 ) widely known notion of trustworthiness in “naturalistic inquiry” is grounded in this approach. In seeking trustworthiness, researchers attend to research credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Validity approaches described by Maxwell ( 1992 ) as “descriptive” and “interpretive” also proceed in the usage of transactional processes.

For example, in the write-up of a study on the facilitation of teacher research, one of us (Trent, 2012 ) wrote about the use of transactional processes:

“Member checking is asking the members of the population being studied for their reaction to the findings” (Sagor, 2000 , p. 136). Interpretations and findings of this research, in draft form, were shared with teachers (for member checking) on multiple occasions throughout the study. Additionally, teachers reviewed and provided feedback on the final draft of this article. (p. 44)

This member checking led to changes in some resultant interpretations (called findings in this particular study) and to adaptations of others that shaped these findings in ways that made them both richer and more contextualized.

Alternatively, in transformational approaches, validity is not so much something that can be achieved solely by employing certain techniques. Transformationalists assert that because traditional or positivist inquiry is no longer seen as an absolute means to truth in the realm of human science, alternative notions of validity should be considered to achieve social justice, deeper understandings, broader visions, and other legitimate aims of qualitative research. In this sense, it is the ameliorative aspects of the research that achieve (or do not achieve) its validity. Validity is determined by the resultant actions prompted by the research endeavor.

Lather ( 1993 ), Richardson ( 1997 ), and others (e.g., Lenzo, 1995 ; Scheurich, 1996 ) proposed a transgressive approach to validity that emphasized a higher degree of self-reflexivity. For example, Lather proposed a “catalytic validity” described as “the degree to which the research empowers and emancipates the research subjects” (Scheurich, 1996 , p. 4). Beverley ( 2000 , p. 556) proposed testimonio as a qualitative research strategy. These first-person narratives find their validity in their ability to raise consciousness and thus provoke political action to remedy problems of oppressed peoples (e.g., poverty, marginality, exploitation).

We, too, have pursued research with transformational aims. In the earlier mentioned study of preservice teachers’ experiences learning to teach second-language learners (Cho et al., 2012 ), our aims were to empower faculty members, evolve the curriculum, and, ultimately, better serve preservice teachers so that they might better serve English-language learners in their classrooms. As program curricula and activities have changed as a result, we claim a degree of transformational validity for this research.

Important, then, for qualitative researchers throughout the inquiry, but especially when engaged in the process of interpretation, is to determine the type(s) of validity applicable to the study. What are the aims of the study? Providing an “accurate” account of studied phenomena? Empowering participants to take action for themselves and others? The determination of this purpose will, in turn, inform researchers’ analysis and interpretation of data. Understanding and attending to the appropriate validity criteria will bolster researcher claims to meaningful findings and assertions.

Regardless of purpose or chosen validity considerations, qualitative research depends on evidence . Researchers in different qualitative methodologies rely on different types of evidence to support their claims. Qualitative researchers typically utilize a variety of forms of evidence including texts (written notes, transcripts, images, etc.), audio and video recordings, cultural artifacts, documents related to the inquiry, journal entries, and field notes taken during observations of social contexts and interactions. Schwandt ( 2001 ) wrote,

Evidence is essential to justification, and justification takes the form of an argument about the merit(s) of a given claim. It is generally accepted that no evidence is conclusive or unassailable (and hence, no argument is foolproof). Thus, evidence must often be judged for its credibility, and that typically means examining its source and the procedures by which it was produced [thus the need for transparency discussed earlier]. (p. 82)

Altheide and Johnson ( 2011 ) drew a distinction between evidence and facts:

Qualitative researchers distinguish evidence from facts. Evidence and facts are similar but not identical. We can often agree on facts, e.g., there is a rock, it is harder than cotton candy. Evidence involves an assertion that some facts are relevant to an argument or claim about a relationship. Since a position in an argument is likely tied to an ideological or even epistemological position, evidence is not completely bound by facts, but it is more problematic and subject to disagreement. (p. 586)

Inquirers should make every attempt to link evidence to claims (or findings, interpretations, assertions, conclusions, etc.). There are many strategies for making these connections. Induction involves accumulating multiple data points to infer a general conclusion. Confirmation entails directly linking evidence to resultant interpretations. Testability/falsifiability means illustrating that evidence does not necessarily contradict the claim/interpretation and so increases the credibility of the claim (Schwandt, 2001 ). In the study about learning to teach second-language learners, for example, a study finding (Cho et al., 2012 ) was that “as a moral claim , candidates increasingly [in higher levels of the teacher education program] feel more responsible and committed to … [English language learners]” (p. 77). We supported this finding with a series of data points that included the following preservice teacher response: “It is as much the responsibility of the teacher to help teach second-language learners the English language as it is our responsibility to teach traditional English speakers to read or correctly perform math functions.” Claims supported by evidence allow readers to see for themselves and to both examine researcher assertions in tandem with evidence and form further interpretations of their own.

Some postmodernists reject the notion that qualitative interpretations are arguments based on evidence. Instead, they argue that qualitative accounts are not intended to faithfully represent that experience, but instead are designed to evoke some feelings or reactions in the reader of the account (Schwandt, 2001 ). We argue that, even in these instances where transformational validity concerns take priority over transactional processes, evidence still matters. Did the assertions accomplish the evocative aims? What evidence/arguments were used to evoke these reactions? Does the presented claim correspond with the study’s evidence? Is the account inclusive? In other words, does it attend to all evidence or selectively compartmentalize some data while capitalizing on other evidentiary forms?

Researchers, we argue, should be both transparent and reflexive about these questions and, regardless of research methodology or purpose, should share with readers of the account their evidentiary moves and aims. Altheide and Johnson ( 2011 ) called this an evidentiary narrative and explain:

Ultimately, evidence is bound up with our identity in a situation.… An “evidentiary narrative” emerges from a reconsideration of how knowledge and belief systems in everyday life are tied to epistemic communities that provide perspectives, scenarios, and scripts that reflect symbolic and social moral orders. An “evidentiary narrative” symbolically joins an actor, an audience, a point of view (definition of a situation), assumptions, and a claim about a relationship between two or more phenomena. If any of these factors are not part of the context of meaning for a claim, it will not be honored, and thus, not seen as evidence. (p. 686)

In sum, readers/consumers of a research account deserve to know how evidence was treated and viewed in an inquiry. They want and should be aware of accounts that aim to evoke versus represent, and then they can apply their own criteria (including the potential transferability to their situated context). Renowned ethnographer and qualitative research theorist Harry Wolcott ( 1990 ) urged researchers to “let readers ‘see’ for themselves” by providing more detail rather than less and by sharing primary data/evidence to support interpretations. In the end, readers do not expect perfection. Writer Eric Liu ( 2010 ) explained, “We don’t expect flawless interpretation. We expect good faith. We demand honesty.”

Last, in this journey through concepts we assert are pertinent to researchers engaged in interpretive processes, we include attention to the literature . In discussing literature, qualitative researchers typically mean publications about the prior research conducted on topics aligned with or related to a study. Most often, this research/literature is reviewed and compiled by researchers in a section of the research report titled “Literature Review.” It is here we find others’ studies, methods, and theories related to our topics of study, and it is here we hope the assertions and theories that result from our studies will someday reside.

We acknowledge the value of being familiar with research related to topics of study. This familiarity can inform multiple phases of the inquiry process. Understanding the extant knowledge base can inform research questions and topic selection, data collection and analysis plans, and the interpretive process. In what ways do the interpretations from this study correspond with other research conducted on this topic? Do findings/interpretations corroborate, expand, or contradict other researchers’ interpretations of similar phenomena? In any of these scenarios (correspondence, expansion, contradiction), new findings and interpretations from a study add to and deepen the knowledge base, or literature, on a topic of investigation.

For example, in our literature review for the study of student teaching, we quickly determined that the knowledge base and extant theories related to the student teaching experience were immense, but also quickly realized that few, if any, studies had examined student teaching from the perspective of the K–12 students who had the student teachers. This focus on the literature related to our topic of student teaching prompted us to embark on a study that would fill a gap in this literature: Most of the knowledge base focused on the experiences and learning of the student teachers themselves. Our study, then, by focusing on the K–12 students’ perspectives, added literature/theories/assertions to a previously untapped area. The “literature” in this area (at least we would like to think) is now more robust as a result.

In another example, a research team (Trent et al., 2003 ) focused on institutional diversity efforts, mined the literature, found an appropriate existing (a priori) set of theories/assertions, and then used the existing theoretical framework from the literature as a framework to analyze data, in this case, a variety of institutional activities related to diversity.

Conducting a literature review to explore extant theories on a topic of study can serve a variety of purposes. As evidenced in these examples, consulting the literature/extant theory can reveal gaps in the literature. A literature review might also lead researchers to existing theoretical frameworks that support analysis and interpretation of their data (as in the use of the a priori framework example). Finally, a review of current theories related to a topic of inquiry might confirm that much theory already exists, but that further study may add to, bolster, and/or elaborate on the current knowledge base.

Guidance for researchers conducting literature reviews is plentiful. Lichtman ( 2013 ) suggested researchers conduct a brief literature review, begin research, and then update and modify the literature review as the inquiry unfolds. She suggested reviewing a wide range of related materials (not just scholarly journals) and additionally suggested that researchers attend to literature on methodology, not just the topic of study. She also encouraged researchers to bracket and write down thoughts on the research topic as they review the literature, and, important for this chapter, that researchers “integrate your literature review throughout your writing rather than using a traditional approach of placing it in a separate chapter” (p. 173).

We agree that the power of a literature review to provide context for a study can be maximized when this information is not compartmentalized apart from a study’s findings. Integrating (or at least revisiting) reviewed literature juxtaposed alongside findings can illustrate how new interpretations add to an evolving story. Eisenhart ( 1998 ) expanded the traditional conception of the literature review and discussed the concept of an interpretive review . By taking this interpretive approach, Eisenhart claimed that reviews, alongside related interpretations/findings on a specific topic, have the potential to allow readers to see the studied phenomena in entirely new ways, through new lenses, revealing heretofore unconsidered perspectives. Reviews that offer surprising and enriching perspectives on meanings and circumstances “shake things up, break down boundaries, and cause things (or thinking) to expand” (p. 394). Coupling reviews of this sort with current interpretations will “give us stories that startle us with what we have failed to notice” (p. 395).

In reviews of research studies, it can certainly be important to evaluate the findings in light of established theories and methods [the sorts of things typically included in literature reviews]. However, it also seems important to ask how well the studies disrupt conventional assumptions and help us to reconfigure new, more inclusive, and more promising perspectives on human views and actions. From an interpretivist perspective, it would be most important to review how well methods and findings permit readers to grasp the sense of unfamiliar perspectives and actions. (Eisenhart, 1998 , p. 397)

Though our interpretation-related journey in this chapter nears an end, we are hopeful it is just the beginning of multiple new conversations among ourselves and in concert with other qualitative researchers. Our aims have been to circumscribe interpretation in qualitative research; emphasize the importance of interpretation in achieving the aims of the qualitative project; discuss the interactions of methodology, data, and the researcher/self as these concepts and theories intertwine with interpretive processes; describe some concrete ways that qualitative inquirers engage the process of interpretation; and, finally, provide a framework of interpretive strategies that may serve as a guide for ourselves and other researchers.

In closing, we note that the TRAVEL framework, construed as a journey to be undertaken by researchers engaged in interpretive processes, is not designed to be rigid or prescriptive, but instead is designed to be a flexible set of concepts that will inform researchers across multiple epistemological, methodological, and theoretical paradigms. We chose the concepts of transparency, reflexivity, analysis, validity, evidence, and literature (TRAVEL) because they are applicable to the infinite journeys undertaken by qualitative researchers who have come before and to those who will come after us. As we journeyed through our interpretations of interpretation, we have discovered new things about ourselves and our work. We hope readers also garner insights that enrich their interpretive excursions. Happy travels!

Altheide, D. , & Johnson, J. M. ( 2011 ). Reflections on interpretive adequacy in qualitative research. In N. M. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 595–610). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Barrett, J. ( 2007 ). The researcher as instrument: Learning to conduct qualitative research through analyzing and interpreting a choral rehearsal.   Music Education Research, 9, 417–433.

Barrett, T. ( 2011 ). Criticizing art: Understanding the contemporary (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.

Belgrave, L. L. , & Smith, K. J. ( 2002 ). Negotiated validity in collaborative ethnography. In N. M. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The qualitative inquiry reader (pp. 233–255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernard, H. R. , Wutich, A. , & Ryan, G. W. ( 2017 ). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beverly, J. ( 2000 ). Testimonio, subalternity, and narrative authority. In N. M. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 555–566). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bogdan, R. C. , & Biklen, S. K. ( 2007 ). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cho, J. , Rios, F. , Trent, A. , & Mayfield, K. ( 2012 ). Integrating language diversity into teacher education curricula in a rural context: Candidates’ developmental perspectives and understandings.   Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 63–85.

Cho, J. , & Trent, A. ( 2006 ). Validity in qualitative research revisited.   QR—Qualitative Research Journal, 6, 319–340.

Denzin, N. M. , & Lincoln, Y. S . (Eds.). ( 2004 ). Handbook of qualitative research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. M. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2007 ). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenhart, M. ( 1998 ). On the subject of interpretive reviews.   Review of Educational Research, 68, 391–393.

Eisner, E. ( 1991 ). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice . New York, NY: Macmillan.

Ellingson, L. L. ( 2011 ). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In N. M. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 595–610). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellis, C. , & Bochner, A. P. ( 2000 ). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. M. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Emerson, R. , Fretz, R. , & Shaw, L. ( 1995 ). Writing ethnographic fieldwork . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Erickson, F. ( 1986 ). Qualitative methods in research in teaching and learning. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Glaser, B. ( 1965 ). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.   Social Problems, 12, 436–445.

Gubrium, J. F. , & Holstein, J. A. ( 2000 ). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. M. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487–508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hammersley, M. ( 2013 ). What is qualitative research? London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2017 ). The practice of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. , & Leavy, P. ( 2011 ). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hubbard, R. S. , & Power, B. M. ( 2003 ). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher researchers . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Husserl, E. ( 1913 /1962). Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R. Boyce Gibson, Trans.). London, England: Collier.

LaBanca, F. ( 2011 ). Online dynamic asynchronous audit strategy for reflexivity in the qualitative paradigm.   Qualitative Report, 16, 1160–1171.

Lather, P. ( 1993 ). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism.   Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673–693.

Leavy, P. ( 2017 ). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lenzo, K. ( 1995 ). Validity and self reflexivity meet poststructuralism: Scientific ethos and the transgressive self.   Educational Researcher, 24(4), 17–23, 45.

Lichtman, M. ( 2013 ). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. , & Guba, E. G. ( 1985 ). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Liu, E. (2010). The real meaning of balls and strikes . Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-liu/the-real-meaning-of-balls_b_660915.html

Maxwell, J. ( 1992 ). Understanding and validity in qualitative research.   Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279–300.

Miles, M. B. , & Huberman, A. M. ( 1994 ). Qualitative data analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, G. E. ( 2018 ). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Olivier de Sardan, J. P. ( 2015 ). Epistemology, fieldwork, and anthropology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Packer, M. J. ( 2018 ). The science of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Paulus, T. , Woodside, M. , & Ziegler, M. ( 2008 ). Extending the conversation: Qualitative research as dialogic collaborative process.   Qualitative Report, 13, 226–243.

Richardson, L. ( 1995 ). Writing stories: Co-authoring the “sea monster,” a writing story.   Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 189–203.

Richardson, L. ( 1997 ). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Sagor, R. ( 2000 ). Guiding school improvement with action research . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Saldaña, J. ( 2011 ). Fundamentals of qualitative research . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Scheurich, J. ( 1996 ). The masks of validity: A deconstructive investigation.   Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 49–60.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 2001 ). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Slotnick, R. C. , & Janesick, V. J. ( 2011 ). Conversations on method: Deconstructing policy through the researcher reflective journal.   Qualitative Report, 16, 1352–1360.

Trent, A. ( 2002 ). Dreams as data: Art installation as heady research,   Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(4), 39–51.

Trent, A. ( 2012 ). Action research on action research: A facilitator’s account.   Action Learning and Action Research Journal, 18, 35–67.

Trent, A. , Rios, F. , Antell, J. , Berube, W. , Bialostok, S. , Cardona, D. , … Rush, T. ( 2003 ). Problems and possibilities in the pursuit of diversity: An institutional analysis.   Equity & Excellence, 36, 213–224.

Trent, A. , & Zorko, L. ( 2006 ). Listening to students: “New” perspectives on student teaching.   Teacher Education & Practice, 19, 55–70.

Willig, C. ( 2017 ). Interpretation in qualitative research. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 267–290). London, England: Sage.

Willis, J. W. ( 2007 ). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wolcott, H. ( 1990 ). On seeking-and rejecting-validity in qualitative research. In E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 121–152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Careers in Qual

Quick answers, related terms.

Research Findings – Objectives , Importance and Techniques

Published 16 October, 2023

Findings are basically the key outcome of the investigation. It is basically a key fact which you can discover during an investigation. Research findings are facts and phrases, observations, and experimental data resulting from research.

It’s important to note here that “finding” does not always mean “factual information” because conductive research relies on results and implications rather than measurable facts.

For example, A researcher is conducting research for measuring the extent up to which globalization impacts the business activities of firms. The findings of the research reveal that there has been a great increase in the profitability of companies after globalization. An important fact which researcher has discovered is that it is globalization which has enabled firms to expand their business operations at the international level.

Objectives of finding section in the research paper

• The main objective of the finding section in a research paper is to display or showcase the outcome in a logical manner by utilizing, tables, graphs, and charts.
• The objective of research findings is to provide a holistic view of the latest research findings in related areas.
• Research findings also aim at providing novel concepts and innovative findings that can be utilized for further research, development of new products or services, implementation of better business strategies, etc.

For example, an academic paper on “the use of product life cycle theory with reference to various product categories” will not only discuss different dimensions of the product life cycle but would also present a detailed case study analysis on how the concept was applied using several contemporary case studies from diverse industries.

Importance of findings in the research paper

The finding section in the research paper has great importance as

• It is the section in a research paper or dissertation that will help you in developing an in-depth understanding of the research problems .
• This is the section where the theories where you can accept or reject theories.
• The findings section helps you in demonstrating the significance of the problem on which you are performing research.
• It is through analysis of the finding section you can easily address the correlational research between the different types of variables in the study.

How to Write Research Findings?

Every research project is unique, so it is very much important for the researcher to utilize different strategies for writing different sections of the research paper. 5 steps that you need to follow for writing the research findings section are:

Step 1: Review the guidelines or instructions of the instructor

It is an initial step, where you should review the guidelines.  By reading the guidelines you will be able to address the different requirements for presenting the results. While reviewing the guidelines you should also keep in mind the restrictions related to the interpretations. In the reseal findings sections, you can also make a comparison between your research results with the outcome of the investigation which other researchers have performed.

Step 2: Focus on the results of the experiment and other findings

At this step, you should choose specific focus experimental results and other research discoveries which are relevant to research questions and objectives. You utilizing subheadings can avoid excessive and peripheral details.  Students can present raw data in appendices of a research paper. You should provide a summary of key findings after completion of the section. Before making the decision related to the structure of the findings section, you need to consider the hypothesis in research and research questions . You should match the format of the findings chapter with that of the research methods sections.

Step 3: Design effective visual presentations

Designing effective visual presentations of research results will help you in improving textual reports of findings. Students can use tables of different styles and unique figures such as maps, graphs, photos which are mainly used by researchers for presenting research findings. But it is very much essential for you to review the journal guidelines. As this is the tactics which will help you in analyzing the requirement of labeling and specific type of formatting. You should number tables, figures, and placement in the manuscript. You should provide a clear and detailed explanation of the data in tables and charts.  Tables and figures should also be self-explanatory

Step 4: Write findings section

You should write the findings sections in a factual and objective manner. While writing the research findings section you should keep in mind its aim. The main aim of the specific section is to communicate information. While writing a findings chapter, it is very much important for you to construct sentences by using a simple structure. You should use an active voice for writing research-finding chapters.  It is very much crucial for you to maintain your concentration on grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Students can utilize a special type of terminology for presenting the findings of the study. You can use thematic analysis in research for presenting the findings. In the thematic analysis technique, you need to design themes on the basis of the answers of respondents.

You should use a logical approach for organizing the findings section in a research paper.  it is very much necessary to highlight the main point and provide summary information which is important for readers in order to develop an understanding of the research discussion section.

Step 5: Review draft of findings section

After writing the findings, you should revise and review them. It is the review technique that will enable you to check accuracy and consistency in information. You can read the content aloud. It s the strategy which will help you in addressing the mistakes.  Ensure that the order in which you have presented results is the best order for focusing readers on your research objectives and preparing them for the interpretations, speculations. Students can also provide recommendations in the discussion chapter. They in order to provide good suggestions need to review back such as introduction, background material.

Read Also: Research Paper Conclusion Tips

Techniques of summarizing important findings

There are a few techniques that you can apply for writing your findings section in a systematic manner. Firstly, you should summarize the key findings. For example, you should start your finding a section like this:

• The outcome of research reveals that ……
• The investigation represents the correlation among….
• While writing the finding section in a research paper, you do not include information that is not important.
• You should provide a synopsis of outcomes along with a detailed description of the findings. It is considered to be an effective approach that can be applied to highlighting the key finding.
• You should use graphs, tables, and charts for presenting the finding
• While writing the findings section you need to highlight the negative outcomes. Students also need to provide proper justification and explanation for the same.

Stuck During Your Dissertation

Our top dissertation writing experts are waiting 24/7 to assist you with your university project,from critical literature reviews to a complete PhD dissertation.

Other Related Guides

• Research Project Questions
• Types of Validity in Research – Explained With Examples
• Schizophrenia Sample Research Paper
• Quantitative Research Methods – Definitive Guide
• Research Paper On Homelessness For College Students
• How to Study for Biology Final Examination
• Textual Analysis in Research / Methods of Analyzing Text

A Guide to Start Research Process – Introduction, Procedure and Tips

• Topic Sentences in Research Paper – Meaning, Parts, Importance, Procedure and Techniques

Recent Research Guides for 2023

Get 15% off your first order with My Research Topics

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

My Research Topics is provides assistance since 2004 to Research Students Globally. We help PhD, Psyd, MD, Mphil, Undergrad, High school, College, Masters students to compete their research paper & Dissertations. Our Step by step mentorship helps students to understand the research paper making process.

Research Topics & Ideas

• Sociological Research Paper Topics & Ideas For Students 2023
• Nurses Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
• Nursing Capstone Project Research Topics & Ideas 2023
• Unique Research Paper Topics & Ideas For Students 2023
• Teaching Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
• Literary Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
• Nursing Ethics Research Topics & Ideas 2023

Research Guide

Disclaimer: The Reference papers provided by the Myresearchtopics.com serve as model and sample papers for students and are not to be submitted as it is. These papers are intended to be used for reference and research purposes only.

Research Skills

Results, discussion, and conclusion, results/findings.

The Results (or Findings) section follows the Methods and precedes the Discussion section. This is where the authors provide the data collected during their study. That data can sometimes be difficult to understand because it is often quite technical. Do not let this intimidate you; you will discover the significance of the results next.

The Discussion section follows the Results and precedes the Conclusions and Recommendations section. It is here that the authors indicate the significance of their results. They answer the question, “Why did we get the results we did?” This section provides logical explanations for the results from the study. Those explanations are often reached by comparing and contrasting the results to prior studies’ findings, so citations to the studies discussed in the Literature Review generally reappear here. This section also usually discusses the limitations of the study and speculates on what the results say about the problem(s) identified in the research question(s). This section is very important because it is finally moving towards an argument. Since the researchers interpret their results according to theoretical underpinnings in this section, there is more room for difference of opinion. The way the authors interpret their results may be quite different from the way you would interpret them or the way another researcher would interpret them.

Note: Some articles collapse the Discussion and Conclusion sections together under a single heading (usually “Conclusion”). If you don’t see a separate Discussion section, don’t worry.  Instead, look in the nearby sections for the types of information described in the paragraph above.

When you first skim an article, it may be useful to go straight to the Conclusion and see if you can figure out what the thesis is since it is usually in this final section. The research gap identified in the introduction indicates what the researchers wanted to look at; what did they claim, ultimately, when they completed their research? What did it show them—and what are they showing us—about the topic? Did they get the results they expected? Why or why not? The thesis is not a sweeping proclamation; rather, it is likely a very reasonable and conditional claim.

Nearly every research article ends by inviting other scholars to continue the work by saying that more research needs to be done on the matter. However, do not mistake this directive for the thesis; it’s a convention. Often, the authors provide specific details about future possible studies that could or should be conducted in order to make more sense of their own study’s conclusions.

• Parts of An Article. Authored by : Kerry Bowers. Provided by : University of Mississippi. Project : WRIT 250 Committee OER Project. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Privacy Policy

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Science, health, and public trust.

September 8, 2021

Explaining How Research Works

We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.

Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.

Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.

Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.

Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.

It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.

We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to  [email protected].

Below are some additional resources:

• Discoveries in Basic Science: A Perfectly Imperfect Process
• When Clinical Research Is in the News
• What is Basic Science and Why is it Important?
• ​ What is a Research Organism?
• What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?
• Basic Research – Digital Media Kit
• Decoding Science: How Does Science Know What It Knows? (NAS)
• Can Science Help People Make Decisions ? (NAS)

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an “Implications of Research” Section

4-minute read

• 24th October 2022

When writing research papers , theses, journal articles, or dissertations, one cannot ignore the importance of research. You’re not only the writer of your paper but also the researcher ! Moreover, it’s not just about researching your topic, filling your paper with abundant citations, and topping it off with a reference list. You need to dig deep into your research and provide related literature on your topic. You must also discuss the implications of your research.

Interested in learning more about implications of research? Read on! This post will define these implications, why they’re essential, and most importantly, how to write them. If you’re a visual learner, you might enjoy this video .

What Are Implications of Research?

Implications are potential questions from your research that justify further exploration. They state how your research findings could affect policies, theories, and/or practices.

Implications can either be practical or theoretical. The former is the direct impact of your findings on related practices, whereas the latter is the impact on the theories you have chosen in your study.

Example of a practical implication: If you’re researching a teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.

Example of a theoretical implication: You added a new variable to Theory A so that it could cover a broader perspective.

Finally, implications aren’t the same as recommendations, and it’s important to know the difference between them .

Questions you should consider when developing the implications section:

●  What is the significance of your findings?

●  How do the findings of your study fit with or contradict existing research on this topic?

●  Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support them, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge them, why do you think that is?

Why Are Implications Important?

You need implications for the following reasons:

● To reflect on what you set out to accomplish in the first place

● To see if there’s a change to the initial perspective, now that you’ve collected the data

● To inform your audience, who might be curious about the impact of your research

How to Write an Implications Section

Usually, you write your research implications in the discussion section of your paper. This is the section before the conclusion when you discuss all the hard work you did. Additionally, you’ll write the implications section before making recommendations for future research.

Implications should begin with what you discovered in your study, which differs from what previous studies found, and then you can discuss the implications of your findings.

Your implications need to be specific, meaning you should show the exact contributions of your research and why they’re essential. They should also begin with a specific sentence structure.

Examples of starting implication sentences:

●  These results build on existing evidence of…

●  These findings suggest that…

●  These results should be considered when…

●  While previous research has focused on x , these results show that y …

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

You should write your implications after you’ve stated the results of your research. In other words, summarize your findings and put them into context.

The result : One study found that young learners enjoy short activities when learning a foreign language.

The implications : This result suggests that foreign language teachers use short activities when teaching young learners, as they positively affect learning.

 Example 2

The result : One study found that people who listen to calming music just before going to bed sleep better than those who watch TV.

The implications : These findings suggest that listening to calming music aids sleep quality, whereas watching TV does not.

To summarize, remember these key pointers:

●  Implications are the impact of your findings on the field of study.

●  They serve as a reflection of the research you’ve conducted.              

●  They show the specific contributions of your findings and why the audience should care.

●  They can be practical or theoretical.

●  They aren’t the same as recommendations.

●  You write them in the discussion section of the paper.

●  State the results first, and then state their implications.

Are you currently working on a thesis or dissertation? Once you’ve finished your paper (implications included), our proofreading team can help ensure that your spelling, punctuation, and grammar are perfect. Consider submitting a 500-word document for free.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

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

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

18k Accesses

Abstractspiepr Abs1

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

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

Part I. What Is Research?

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

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

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

Exercise 1.1

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.2

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

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

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

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing Scientific Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.4

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

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.5

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

Exercise 1.6

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

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.7

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

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.8

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

Exercise 1.9

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

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

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

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

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

Download citation

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

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• What Makes Life Meaningful? Views From 17 Advanced Economies
• 1. Finding meaning in others

Table of Contents

• 2. Finding meaning in the bigger picture
• 3. Finding meaning in what one does
• 4. The conditions that enable meaning
• 5. The pandemic and other difficulties
• 6. General – rather than specific – satisfaction
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A: Coding methodology
• Appendix B: Survey methodology
• Appendix C: Codebook
• Appendix D: Political categorization

In almost every public surveyed, substantial shares identify others in their life as a source of meaning. Family is most frequently mentioned in almost all survey publics and appears within the top five sources of meaning in every place surveyed. Some people also cite romantic partners and their friends and community. When mentioning finding meaning in others, not everyone limits themselves to the humans in their lives – some also make a point to cite their pets, too.

Family and children

With few exceptions, family is by far the most frequently mentioned source of fulfillment in life for people in these 17 publics. A median of nearly four-in-ten adults (38%) mention finding meaning in their immediate or extended family, children or grandchildren, parenthood or other aspects of their familial relationships. In places like Australia, Greece, New Zealand and the U.S., roughly half or more mention family when discussing what gives them meaning.

“I think family is very important in my life. You practice what you preach. And contributing to society and instilling strong values and a sense of respect in my children to treat others as they want to be treated. ” –Woman, 52, Australia

While many people offer more than one thing that gives them meaning in life, in responses where people mention just  one  source of meaning, family appears more commonly than any other topic. For example, in Greece, 20% of responses are  only  about family and nothing else. As one older man in France observed, “My family is something that satisfies me, family is everything.” A young person in New Zealand echoed a similar sentiment: “For myself I believe that family is a very important part of my life. If anything else changes I wouldn’t mind as long as family is around.” 

While family is the top source of meaning across most publics – the notable exceptions being South Korea, Spain and Taiwan – it is considerably more important for those ages 30 to 49 in most places surveyed – an age group that is  especially likely to have children at home . For example, in Australia, 70% of those ages 30 to 49 mention their family as a source of meaning, compared with 60% of those ages 50 to 64 – and fewer than half of those either under 30 or ages 65 and older. 

More affluent people are also somewhat more likely to mention family as a source of meaning in many of the publics surveyed. In New Zealand, for example, around two-thirds of those who have incomes at or above the median cite family in their answers, whereas fewer than half of those who are less well-off say the same. To a lesser extent, mentions of family were also higher among more educated people in most places.

Women are also often more likely than men to mention their families or children. In New Zealand, for example, around two-thirds (64%) of women mention their families, while fewer than half (45%) of men say the same. Notably, this gender gap is not as prominent in Spain and Italy or in Asian publics where family is mentioned less frequently overall (South Korea, Singapore, Japan). 

Spouses and romantic partners

Though references to the family or children are far more common, some people specifically mention their spouse or romantic partner as an important source of meaning, or make some sort of reference to marriage, dating or romantic love in general. Many emphasize companionship with their partners, like one French woman who enjoys “playing Scrabble and other board games with my husband every night.” Laughter and humor are also a theme. As one Japanese man mused, “I laugh together with my wife at least once a day.” A Dutch woman similarly reflected, “I am not alone, [I] have my husband, and I am very happy about that, especially in these times.” 

“My wife gives me a reason, not just to survive but to thrive … Her questions and views make me think (and laugh).”  –Man, 67, United States

Others describe how their relationships help them overcome difficulties and inspire them to be better. As one American man explained, “I recently became a husband and I derive meaning every day from trying to be a better partner to my spouse – to learn how we can grow together as a couple and how we can try and make the world around us a better place.” Another woman, also in the U.S., said of her husband, “He is thoughtful and supportive and gives me ground to stand on when everything else falls apart.”

Relatively few (4%) mention their spouse or partner in the median public, but the U.S. and Taiwan stand out as notable exceptions. Nearly one-in-ten U.S. adults (9%) mention their spouse or partner, and it is the ninth most commonly mentioned source of meaning there. By contrast, it is among the least-mentioned topics in Taiwan, where fewer than 1% of the public mention their spouse or partner. 

Friends, community and other relationships

Substantial shares also mention relationships with friends and community when identifying sources of meaning in their life. For instance, one Italian woman said, “[M]y family, being together with my loved ones, my wife, my son, being at peace with myself and my friends, acquaintances, and all those I can spend time with,” and another woman in Greece said she finds meaning from her “personal life and social life with friends and people we are close to.” Some mention these connections in the context of COVID-19, such as a German man who said, “I find it remarkable how the COVID crisis affected our behaviors. I, for one, appreciate very much personal contact with those around me.”

Australians are the most likely to bring up ties to friends or community (28%). About a quarter also mention relationships with people outside the family in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK. In each of these countries, too, community and friends are one of the top four factors mentioned. 

“Having a rapport with others. Even if my friends have a different way of thinking than I do, we talk about it and communicate, and foster an understanding.”  –Man, 18, Japan

East Asian publics, on the other hand, are the least likely to mentions friends or community; no more than one-in-ten bring up these relationships in these places. In Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, community is not mentioned as a top source of meaning.

In many survey publics, younger adults – those ages 18 to 29 – bring up their friends and community more frequently than older counterparts. The age difference is greatest in Greece: 37% of young adults talk about their friends or other relationships outside of their family, compared with just 5% of those 65 and older. 

Friends and community are also mentioned more frequently by those with more education in five of the surveyed publics. In the U.S., for example, 31% of those with a postsecondary education or more speak about their friends or community when discussing what brings meaning to their lives, while 13% of those with less than a postsecondary education say the same, a difference of 18 percentage points. 

Those on the ideological left also tend to be more likely to mention friends or community than those on the right. For example, 29% of left-leaning Canadians mention finding meaning in their friendships or community relationships, while just 11% of right-leaning adults in Canada say they do so. Similar differences also appear in six of the other surveyed publics. 

Although not commonly mentioned in any of the surveyed publics, pets are a source of meaning for 4% of adults in New Zealand and for 3% of Americans, Australians and Britons. Outside of these particular countries, very few in most places – and none at all in both South Korea and Taiwan – mention their animals as a source of meaning. 

“I find being around my family and animals, especially my dog, my cat and my horse, very fulfilling, and they give me peace of mind. They make my day feel good. If I did not have them around, I would be bored out of my tree.” –Woman, 60, New Zealand

Responses mentioning pets sometimes occur alongside responses that mention hobbies and recreation. For example, one Briton said: “I like country walks, communing with nature and pets.” In New Zealand, 12% of those who mention hobbies and recreation also mention their pets, compared with the 2% of those who do not bring up hobbies. And in the U.S., 14% of respondents who identify hobbies as something that give their lives meaning also point to their pets, compared with the 3% of those who do not mention hobbies. One such respondent in the U.S. said what they found meaningful was “taking time to play with my dog and explore nature parks with her.” 

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Business & Workplace
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Family & Relationships
• Global Health
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction

Is College Worth It?

Half of latinas say hispanic women’s situation has improved in the past decade and expect more gains, a majority of latinas feel pressure to support their families or to succeed at work, a look at small businesses in the u.s., majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, most popular, report materials.

• Interactive: Where People Around the World Find Meaning in Life
• Spring 2021 Survey Data

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A randomized controlled trial of Golden Ratio, Feng Shui, and evidence based design in healthcare

Contributed equally to this work with: Emma Zijlstra, Mark Mobach

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Research Group Facility Management, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization

¶ ‡ BZ, SK, AR, and DW also contributed equally to this work.

Roles Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation International Feng Shui Association, Singapore, Singapore

Roles Conceptualization, Resources

Affiliation Ab Rogers Design, London, United Kingdom

Roles Formal analysis, Project administration

Affiliations Research Group Facility Management, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands, Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research Group Facility Management, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands, Research Group Spatial Environment and the User, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

• Emma Zijlstra, 
• Bart van der Zwaag, 
• Sabine Kullak, 
• Ab Rogers, 
• Dean Walker, 
• Sjoukje van Dellen, 
• Mark Mobach

• Published: June 5, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032
• Reader Comments

In a global effort to design better hospital buildings for people and organizations, some design principles are still surrounded by great mystery. The aim of this online study was to compare anxiety in an existing single-bed inpatient hospital room with three redesigns of this room in accordance with the principles of Golden Ratio, Feng Shui, and Evidence-Based Design.

In this online multi-arm parallel-group randomized trial participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to one of four conditions, namely Golden Ratio condition, Feng Shui condition, Evidence-Based Design condition, or the control condition. The primary outcomes were anxiety, sense of control, social support, positive distraction, and pleasantness of the room.

Between June 24, 2022, and August 22, 2022, 558 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, 137 participants to the control condition, 138 participants to the Golden Ratio condition, 140 participants to the Feng Shui condition, and 143 participants to the Evidence-Based Design condition. Compared with baseline, participants assigned to the Evidence-Based Design condition experienced less anxiety (mean difference -1.35, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.55, Cohen’s d = 0.40, p < 0.001). Results also showed a significant indirect effect of the Feng Shui condition on anxiety through the pleasantness of the room (B = -0.85, CI = -1.29 to -0.45) and social support (B = -0.33, CI = -0.56 to -0.13). Pleasantness of the room and social support were mediators of change in anxiety in the Evidence-Based Design and Feng Shui conditions. In contrast, application of the design principle Golden Ratio showed no effect on anxiety and remains a myth.

Interpretation

To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial linking design principles directly to anxiety in hospital rooms. The findings of our study suggest that Feng Shui and Evidence-Based Design hospital rooms can mitigate anxiety by creating a pleasant looking hospital room that fosters access to social support.

Clinical trial registration

The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10480033 .

Citation: Zijlstra E, Zwaag Bvd, Kullak S, Rogers A, Walker D, van Dellen S, et al. (2024) A randomized controlled trial of Golden Ratio, Feng Shui, and evidence based design in healthcare. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0303032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032

Editor: Laura Hannah Kelly, Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: October 19, 2023; Accepted: April 11, 2024; Published: June 5, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Zijlstra et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This study was funded by the Delta Prize (Deltapremie) number PR.01.2. This prize is a leading award for applied research at universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands ( https://regieorgaan-sia.nl/taskforce-applied-research-sia/ ). Mark Mobach received this prize in 2019. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Competing interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: Sabine Kullak is affiliated with the International Feng Shui Association. Ab Rogers and Dean Walker are affiliated with Ab Rogers Design (design studio). This does not alter adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. These authors solely provided the design details in order to visualize the adaptations in the Feng Shui room and Evidence-Based Design room. They were not involved in any other aspect of the research process, such as methodology, data collection, data analysis or drawing conclusions from the data. Their contribution was limited to the conception of the work (i.e., providing design details of the FS and EBD room), reviewing the draft critically, and providing a final approval of the version to be published.

Introduction

In a long tradition of design principles, some are still surrounded by great mystery. Well-known examples are the Golden Ratio and Feng Shui. In a global effort to design better hospital buildings for people and organizations, designers may benefit from a demystification of these principles. Given the high stress of illness and recovery, patients are especially likely to benefit from appropriate designs. It is expected that practice application can be improved by clarification of its impact, for instance, on human experience and health.

This study compares the impact of three design principles on patients: two classical and one contemporary. The three respective design principles are based on mathematics (Golden Ratio), energy (Feng Shui), and statistics (Evidence-Based Design). Much has been written about these principles, but what exactly are the actual effects of spaces that are designed in accordance with these principles? Can such spaces improve health? To assess the effects on people and differences between these design principles, we developed a digital twin of a real-life single-bed inpatient hospital room (see images Fig 2 ) and adapted this room in accordance with these three design principles.

The Golden Ratio (GR) is a number defined by Euclid of Alexandria in Greece more than 2,000 years ago [ 1 ]. The GR is also referred to as the phi number (ϕ), the golden section, or the golden mean. The GR is the proportion between two quantities a and b when a / b = b /( a + b ), than a must be approximately 61.8% of b [ 2 ]. The GR can also be converted to other geometrical shapes, including the golden rectangle, golden angle, or the golden spiral. A golden rectangle is a rectangle of which the length-to-width ratio equals that of the GR. Much has been written about the mathematical ratio (the never ending number 1.6180339887 …) and it seems that it can be found almost anywhere, from the natural world (e.g., plants, animals) to the artificial world (e.g., art, architecture). The GR principle suggests that a design that is designed in accordance with these proportions has pleasant harmonious qualities and can improve aesthetics [ 1 ]. Experimental studies on the aesthetics of the GR started in the 19 th century and some studies found preferences for the golden rectangle [ 3 – 5 ]. Although scientific evidence has shown that people may prefer the golden rectangle, the evidence is fragile and often not unambiguous [ 6 ]. To date and to our knowledge, no scientific evidence clarifies the influence of the GR on people’s health.

Feng Shui (FS) is incorporated in many aspects of life in Chinese culture. FS is a principle that suggests that a natural energy, the Qi, which cannot be seen, is a source of health, human harmony, and prosperity [ 7 ]. The theory of the five elements is the basis of all Chinese metaphysics and states that the elements (i.e., wood, fire, earth, metal, and water) represent all physical (e.g., shapes and materials) and non-physical aspects (e.g., compass directions, seasons) [ 8 ]. The flow of Qi is affected by the shapes and forms in the environment, its compass direction, and time. All visible aspects of the environment are part of the FS Form School and this school of thought includes the following four aspects: position, moderation of Qi flow, types of Sha Qi, and arrangement of objects [ 8 ]. This can be briefly illustrated with the design of a hospital bedroom. Firstly, the term ‘position’ can be best described in an analogy, as a room that is designed like an armchair. It has a comfortable back (symbol: tortoise), shelters on the left and right (dragon and tiger respectively), and a structure in front (phoenix). These symbols of celestial animals represent the supporting structures of the natural or built environment. FS contends that it is important to establish shelter on both sides of the bed. This is achieved with higher objects on the left side of the bed (dragon) than on the right side of the bed (tiger). Secondly, the ‘moderation of Qi flow’ advises designers to moderate the Qi flow in the room. This flow may bounce within the room, and, for instance, should not rush from door through window or target the patient. In contrast, it needs to accumulate and flow gently to be beneficial for humans. Thirdly, the ‘types of Sha Qi’ refer to properties which impose a negative energy on the patient and should be avoided. Examples of sources of Sha Qi are sharp corners, mirrors, overhead structures, or outside view to traffic and unpleasant objects. Finally, the ‘arrangement’ refers to the position of the bed in relation to doors and functional areas. FS advises to separate calm zones in the room (i.e., bed) from communicative areas (i.e., visitors table) and to position the bed not facing the entrance directly, while still in a position allowing to control the entrance. Again, to date and to our knowledge, no scientific evidence clarifies the influence of FS on people’s health.

Evidence-Based Design (EBD) refers to a design that is guided by empirical evidence of scientifically studied effects of the physical surroundings on people [ 9 ]. The evidence is mostly based on research in health care settings. In 1984, Science reported that the view on nature from a hospital bed reduced the length of stay, the analgesic intake, and nurses’ evaluative comments of patients [ 10 ]. Nowadays, a considerable amount of research is available on evidence-based designs that can improve patient outcomes in hospital environments, and, by doing so, change these into healing environments [ 11 – 13 ]. For example, designers are advised to apply single rooms to reduce hospital acquired infections [ 14 ], larger windows with views to calm patients [ 15 ], more daylight to reduce stress, pain, and medication use [ 16 ], dynamic light to improve sleep [ 17 ], less blue-depleted lighting to decrease anxiety [ 18 ], or so-called ‘healing art’ to improve perceptions of the environment or to reduce anxiety [ 19 , 20 ]. However, most studies have been carried out with non-patients, were not randomized, were not true-to-life, and/or contained small sample groups [ 21 ]. Even though scientific evidence thus suggests a positive influence on people’s health, EBD can benefit from true-to-life rigorous studies with larger groups of patients.

An important indicator of health is stress [ 22 – 24 ]. Although patient’s recovery benefits from relaxation, this is often difficult because hospitalization is usually an uncertain and anxious experience [ 25 ]. Hospital environments can support these patients with anxiety mitigation. In this context, the theory of supportive design suggests that patients may experience less anxiety when the healthcare environment fosters more sense of control, access to social support, and access to positive distraction [ 26 ]. It is also known that the visual aesthetics can play an important role in mitigating anxiety in hospital facilities [ 27 – 29 ]. A complement of patient anxiety with their experienced sense of control, social support, positive distraction, and pleasantness of the room is thus advised.

The aim of this online study was to compare anxiety in an existing single-bed inpatient hospital room with three redesigns of this room in accordance with the principles of GR, FS, and EBD.

Participants

Participants were recruited between June 24, 2022, and August 22, 2022, by the Dutch Patient Federation ( Fig 1 ). Eligible participants were patients of 18 years or older that had been hospitalized in the Netherlands in their lives for at least one night. Exclusion criteria were participants who were hospitalized for the last time: (1) at a psychiatric ward, (2) at a rehabilitation clinic, (3) or for the birth of their child, because this type of health care is often delivered at other facilities in the Netherlands and the length of stay differs too much from the average length of stay in a Dutch hospital of 4.5 days. Participants gave their written informed consent before continuing to the survey.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.g001

Study design

The study was an online multi-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial with participants assigned to one of four conditions, namely GR condition, FS condition, EBD condition, or the control condition (the digital twin of a real-life hospital room). Participants were exposed to a 3D simulation of the hospital room through a combination of video, images, and descriptions of the hospital room.

In the control condition respondents experienced and rated the digital twin of a real-life single-bed inpatient hospital room with ensuite bathroom in an existing hospital in the Netherlands (see images Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.g002

In the GR condition all spatial rectangles of the inpatient hospital room and ensuite bathroom were shaped according to the GR of 1.618… (see images Fig 3A and 3B ). As the height of the ceiling (i.e., 2.83m) was subject to legal requirements, only this had to remain unchanged and formed therefore the basis for the design. For example, the height of the patient room was 2.83m so the width of the room was 4.58m (2.83m * 1.618…m). The interior features in the room were horizontally positioned in the centre of the golden rectangles. The height of the interior features remained unchanged because of ergonomic requirements.

a. Images of the Golden Ratio condition. b. Alterations of specific design features in the Golden Ratio condition. All spatial rectangles of the inpatient hospital room and ensuite bathroom were shaped according to the GR of 1.618… The interior features in the room were horizontally positioned in the centre of the golden rectangles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.g003

In the FS condition the interior features were designed according to the principles of Feng Shui (see images Fig 4A and 4B ). This study focused on the FS Form School and the theory of five elements. Other FS related aspects (e.g., energy of flying stars, fortune of the patients and doctors, timing of usage, and Feng Shui of the entire hospital building) were excluded from this study due to the virtual study setting. For this study, a qualified FS master had determined the required design elements according to the FS principles. The first design intervention of the FS Form School is related to ‘position’ (e.g., supportive structure of colour block at the back of the bed), the second to ‘moderation of Qi flow’ (e.g., cabinet under the TV), the third to ‘types of Sha Qi’ (e.g., round shapes and corners of furniture, position TV to avoid reflection, removed clock, smaller pin board, hide trashcan in cabinet, avoid overhead structures like the ceiling lift and headwall, greenery outside to block the view on traffic), and the fourth to ‘arrangement’ (e.g., separation of functional areas by position and colour). From the theory of five elements, the design intervention is related to the colour scheme (i.e., earthy colour beige and fresh colour yellow because these colours represent centeredness, calmness, and balance in a hospital room). The FS list of changed features was limited to 15 features for reasons of feasibility and comparability. The proposed redesign was discussed within a qualified Feng Shui (grand) masters panel and after seven modifying iterations the redesign was approved.

a. Images of the Feng Shui condition. b. Alterations of specific design features in the Feng Shui condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.g004

In the EBD condition the architectural and interior features were designed according to the principle of Evidence-Based Design (see images Fig 5A and 5B ). The ambient features (i.e., sound and odour) were excluded from this study due to the focus on the visual environment and virtual study setting. In the first step, a longlist of 49 design features of single-bed inpatient rooms was identified based on two recent studies [ 15 , 30 ]. In the second step, this list was assessed by a panel of scientific experts in this field using an online survey. They were asked to rate each feature on a 7-point scale how much impact they expect the feature would have on reducing anxiety (1 = no impact at all, 7 = a lot of impact). This was used to prioritize all features of the longlist. In the third step, the outcomes of the survey were discussed in a focus group with the same experts, to reach consensus about a shortlist of 15 design features. As a result, two design requirements were added, namely (1) a home-like ambience (e.g., use of materials, colours, shapes, lighting, and reduce view to medical devices), and (2) a visual calm (e.g., no chaos of ambience, styles, and elements). Finally, a leading architectural firm from London used the short list as a basis for the single-bed inpatient hospital room redesign of this study.

a. Images of the Evidence-Based Design condition, b. Alterations of specific design features in the Evidence-Based Design condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.g005

An overview of the design characteristics of the interventions of the four conditions is presented in the supporting information ( S1 Table ).

According to the Dutch Law for medical research involving human subjects (WMO), a waiver for ethical assessment was provided by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Medical University of Groningen on May 9, 2022 (METc 2022/259). The study was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki.

Randomisation

This study was an online double-blinded randomized controlled trial using the survey program Qualtrics. After some general questions about themselves they were automatically randomized by the online survey program to one of the four intervention groups (1:1:1:1 allocation ratio). Participants were told that the aim of this study was to improve hospital rooms for patients and that we were interested in their experiences and opinions about a hospital room. Participants were not aware of the different conditions. All outcome measures were self-reported by participants via an online survey ( S1 Questionnaire ).

After some general questions about themselves participants were randomized by the online survey program to one of the four intervention groups. First, they were exposed to a 2-minute video of the patient room that met one of the four conditions. In all conditions, participants were exposed to these videos which all followed the exact same ‘walking route’ through the room. Followed by two pictures of the patient room, two pictures of the bathroom, the 3D floorplan, and a detailed description of the facilities in the rooms. Participants were asked to imagine that they were recovering from surgery in this hospital room and then answered the questions about the dependent variable anxiety (STAI). As a reminder, they were again exposed to two pictures of the patient room and two pictures of the bathroom before answering the questions about the mediating variables (pleasantness of the room, sense of control, social support, and positive distraction).

The primary outcome is anxiety. Anxiety was assessed by the short State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [ 31 ]. This six-item short form (STAI-6) measured the level of anxiety immediately after respondents had seen the intervention (i.e., calm, tense, upset, relaxed, content, and worried). Each item was measured from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The positive items were reversed, and the sum of all items (total score of 6 to 24) was calculated. A higher score reflects more anxiety. There were no missing values on any of the self-reported items, because the online survey required an answer to all questions. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.

The measure to assess the mediators sense of control, social support, and positive distraction was the Supportive Hospital Environment Design Scale [ 32 , 33 ]. The sense of control scale (5 items) measured the expected sense of control in the patient room. Each item was measured from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’ (e.g., ‘In this hospital room I am able to control the surrounding environment’). A higher score reflects a more expected sense of control. The total score was 5 to 25. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86. This social support scale (4-items) measured the expected social support in the patient room. Each item was measured from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’ (e.g., ‘This hospital room allows me to socialize/“get together” with visiting family and friends’). A higher score reflects more expected social support. The total score was 4 to 20. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87. This positive distraction scale (4-items) measured the expected perceived positive distraction in the patient room. Each item was measured from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’ (e.g., ‘In this room my attention is drawn to interesting things’). A higher score reflects more expected positive distraction. The total score was 4 to 20. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.

The mediator pleasantness of the room (1 item) was assessed on a 10-point bipolar scale ranging from (1) ‘not pleasant’ to (1) ‘very pleasant’ directly after seeing the images for the second time of the patient room.

Statistical analysis

In a priori power analysis a minimal sample size was calculated conservatively for the primary outcome anxiety and showed that we needed to include 70 participants in each group (total N = 280) to detect at least a medium effect size of f = 0.25 (alpha = 0.05, 1-beta = 0.95) in an ANOVA test with four groups. The sample size was calculated using the simplest between-group comparison (F tests–analysis of variance) in G*Power 3.1 [ 34 , 35 ]. To remain 70 participants in each group, it was calculated that we needed to include 175 participants in each group (700 participants in total) with an estimated dropout of 60% (420/700). The total baseline of 700 participants can be taken as a conservative upper bound.

A linear regression analyses was conducted to test the effects of the intervention on perceived anxiety. Each intervention was compared with the control condition independently. The following possible explanatory variables were included in the model: gender, age, ethnicity, education, work, household, general health, and mental health. Next, the Akaike information Criterion (AIC) was used to identify variables significantly contributing to reduce anxiety [ 36 ]. The model selection was performed in R.

It was expected that participants would perceive less anxiety when they perceive the room as more pleasant, and, at the same time, that they would perceive more sense of control, more social support, and more positive distraction in the room. A parallel multiple mediation analysis was conducted to test for the indirect effect of the intervention on anxiety through social support and pleasantness of the room. Selection of potential mediators was based on the results of the minimum AIC model selection. We tested for the effect of the intervention, pleasantness of the room, social support, educational level, general health, and mental health. The mediation effect was estimated using PROCESS in SPSS 28.0 and performing 5000 bootstrap samples. The trial was registered retrospectively because of an oversight, prospective trial registration was overlooked (ISRCTN10480033). Details of our initial ethics approval and protocol are in the supported information.

Role of the funding source

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Participants were recruited between June 24, 2022, and August 22, 2022. During this study, 740 participants met the inclusion criteria of which 558 completed the questionnaire. From this group, 137 participants filled in the questionnaire in the control condition, 138 participants filled in the questionnaire in the GR condition, 140 participants filled in the questionnaire in the FS condition, and 143 participants filled in the questionnaire in the EBD condition ( Fig 1 ). An ANOVA test (ratio variables) and chi-square test (nominal variables) were used to explore for differences between groups. No significant differences were found between the groups. The baseline characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.t001

Regarding the primary measures, the EBD condition was associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and significant increases in sense of control, social support, positive distraction, and pleasantness of the room (all p<0.001; Table 2 ). The FS condition was associated with significant increases in social support, positive distraction, and pleasantness of the room ( Table 2 ). Results showed no significant effects of the GR intervention on anxiety, pleasantness of the room, sense of control, social support, or positive distraction ( Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.t002

Table 3 shows the results of the linear regression analyses. Although results showed no direct effect of the intervention on anxiety, results of the parallel multiple mediation analysis in Table 4 showed a significant total effect of the EBD intervention on anxiety, as the 95% bootstrapped confidence interval did not include zero (B = -1.47, CI = -2.25 to -0.68). Results also showed a significant indirect effect of the intervention EBD on anxiety through the pleasantness of the room (B = -1.26, CI = -1.70 to -0.85) and through social support (B = -0.50, CI = -0.77 to -0.27). As Fig 6 illustrates, the group of participants who were exposed to the EBD condition rated the room as more pleasant (B = 1.62, p = <0.001) and expected more social support (B = 2.00, p = <0.001). The more pleasant participants perceived the room, the less anxiety they reported (ab = 1.62*-0.78 = 1.26). Moreover, the more social support participants expected, the less anxiety they reported (ab = 2.00*-0.25 = -0.50). No evidence was found for the mediating effects of either sense of control or positive distraction on anxiety.

*p < 0.01; c’ = direct effect; c = total effect.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.g006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.t003

Coef. = coefficient, SE = Standard error.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.t004

Next, results also showed a significant indirect effect of the FS intervention on anxiety through the pleasantness of the room (B = -0.85, CI = -1.29 to -0.45) and through social support (B = -0.33, CI = -0.57 to -0.13). As Fig 6 illustrates, the group of participants who were exposed to the FS condition rated the room as more pleasant (B = 1.09, p = <0.001) and expected more social support (B = 1.32, p = 0.001). The more pleasant participants perceived the room, the less anxiety they reported (ab = 1.09*-0.78 = -0.85). Moreover, the more social support participants expected, the less anxiety they reported (ab = 1.32*-0.25 = -0.33). No evidence was found for the mediating effect of sense of control and positive distraction on anxiety.

In this online study, we developed three single-bed inpatient hospital room redesigns and found evidence for the effects of the FS and EBD principles on anxiety with the original room design as a baseline. In contrast, there was no evidence to support a GR application as it did not influence any of the outcomes.

As expected, participants in the online EBD condition perceived less anxiety compared to the control condition. Results showed statistically significant evidence for the total effect of the EBD condition on anxiety. Moreover, this study also showed that the anxiety-inducing effect of the EBD condition is mediated by perceived pleasantness of the room and social support. Participants perceived the room as pleasant and expected more social support in the EBD condition, which in turn reduced their reported anxiety levels. This partially confirms the theory of supportive design that perceived social support can reduce anxiety [ 26 ], but also suggests that other mediating variables may have influenced reported anxiety levels. However, results also showed that even though the EBD condition significantly improved sense of control and positive distraction, sense of control and positive distraction both failed to influence the anxiety outcome. This can be explained by the fact that the people in our sample were relatively old, with an average age of 66 years. This may imply that not all people perceive higher levels of control as anxiety reducing. It is possible that the mere presence of functionalities and technologies can stress out people. In this context, for elderly it is important that technologies are accessible ‐ that information about the technology is available ‐ and that it is easy to use [ 37 ]. If such needs are ignored, it may provoke anxiety. Moreover, elderly can be frightened to learn new things, such as how to handle new technologies [ 38 ]. The results also imply that a pleasant looking room is more important for anxiety reduction than offering positive distraction. As pleasantness of the room is mostly positive associated with reducing anxiety [ 27 ]. Some evidence exists in literature, but further research should clarify which specific design features positively influence anxiety best.

In the online FS condition a significant indirect effect was shown on anxiety, through the rating of pleasantness of the room and expected social support. Participants experienced the room as pleasant and expected to receive more social support in the FS condition. Results showed significant mediation effects, but lacked an overall effect of FS on anxiety. The most likely interpretation of these results is that FS has a stronger influence on the outcomes perceived pleasantness and social support, when compared with the anxiety outcome [ 39 ]. Another possible explanation might be that the FS intervention has an additional negative effect on an unmeasured mediator which leads to an anxiety increase [ 39 – 41 ]. This might be due to the unmeasured aspect of functionality. For example, in the open questions participants in the FS condition stated that they disliked the position of the TV, because they always had to look to the side, whereas others argued that they missed storage space for personal belongings. This may imply that as the position of the TV did not “work” appropriately, it may have created adverse effects to anxiety reduction [ 29 ]. Further research in a real-life setting should clarify which other FS aspects can mitigate anxiety best. Nevertheless, in the FS condition participants experienced a more pleasant looking room and more social support, and accordingly experienced less anxiety. Thus, it seems that the energetic FS condition, just as EBD, reduces anxiety.

The online GR condition showed no effects on anxiety, perceived pleasantness of the room, sense of control, social support, and positive distraction. The first explanation might be that due to the new proportions and positioning, more attention is given to the existing, apparently, unpleasant design features as reported in some of the open questions. For example, in the open questions participants in the GR condition stated that they disliked the colours on the floor and walls, and the clinical atmosphere. Secondly, it can perhaps also be explained with spatial disproportionality, in this case a room size that is too large for the existing interior features [ 29 ]. This suggests that the design of a patient room cannot be improved by mechanical application of the GR design principle; perhaps a more refined application of GR is better fit for purpose. Nevertheless, it can also be that a combination of GR with EBD or FS may have a stronger influence on anxiety through pleasantness of the room and social support. Further research should clarify this.

Limitations and further research

There are some limitations to be considered. In the current study, multiple design features were manipulated simultaneously. Although this study showed that both FS and EBD are capable in effecting anxiety, further research should continue to study the effect of specific design features. Another limitation is that only single-bed inpatient rooms were studied. Nowadays, hospitals in Europe and United States are designed with an increasing number of single rooms. Nevertheless, from a social perspective multi-bedded rooms should still be considered [ 42 ]. Therefore, it is recommended that further studies also study the effects of these design principles in multi-bedded inpatient rooms.

Although this study showed that simulation is a useful tool to study the effects of different design, it also has some limitations. First, participants were not exposed to real hospital rooms during hospitalization. Further research in real hospital settings should assess the effects of the actual health of participants and health care delivery. Visual simulations of an inpatient room are likely to have limitations for assessing the effects of design features that enhance control. Decades of research have found that sense of control is important for reducing anxiety [ 26 , 43 , 44 ]. These studies have commonly assigned participants to real or tangible multisensory environmental or laboratory conditions that vary with respect to the actual experience of being able to control. For example, visual simulations do not give participants an actual experience of being able to control, for instance, lighting or temperature or watching a program on the TV, or privacy violations. Second, a limitation of this study is that we did not include the audio environment in the visual simulation. Much EBD theory supports the importance of noise-reducing design principles for reducing patient stress and improving clinical outcomes. Further research in a more realistic and valid simulation would require more advanced digital technology or interactive audio-visual virtual reality. Third, another limitation of this study was that only FS form school could be included in this simulation study. Some major aspects of FS, for instance, energy of flying stars, fortune of the patients and doctors, timing of usage, and FS of the entire hospital, were not included in this simulation study. Further research in a real hospital environment could include these different FS schools. Notwithstanding these limitations, this current simulation study contributes to a better understanding of the influence of different design principles on anxiety. Understanding the influence of these design principles will contribute to the further development of effective interventions in inpatient room designs.

Conclusions

In summary, participants in the online FS and EBD conditions experienced less anxiety, through experiencing a more pleasant room and more social support. The design principle FS can be demystified, and our results suggest that there are many similarities between FS and EBD, even though they exist from totally different cultural backgrounds and led to different overall interior designs. A well-known example of similarity is the outside view to greenery [ 8 , 10 ]. Other examples are the use of similar round shapes and corners in furniture [ 8 ], decluttering [ 8 , 30 ], and the use of natural materials [ 15 ]. Knowledge about the effects of these design principles and related design features can help designers and decision makers to create healthcare building facilities for patients that have the capacity to reduce their anxiety, and, by doing so, can enhance their health. Our conclusion is that designing a patient room according to FS and EBD principles can create a more pleasant room to reduce anxiety.

Supporting information

S1 table. design features of interventions..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.s001

S1 Questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.s002

S1 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.s003

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.s004

S1 Protocol.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303032.s005

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the valuable support of Laura Lee of the Maggie Keswick Jencks Cancer (London, United Kingdom), Jurjen van der Noord, Niels Snijdood, Anton Sombetzski, and Marten Heres of Geomaat (Groningen, The Netherlands), Jan Bouwhuis, Edwin van Lang, Evert Jan Beens, Karin van Osnabrugge, Jan van Tuijl, and Radboud van der Roest of the University Medical Centre Groningen (Groningen, The Netherlands), Berit-Ann Roos, Ria Martens, Arnout Siegelaar, Saskia Mars, Stefan Lechner, and Martijn Vos of the Research Group Facility Management of Hanze University of Applied Sciences (Groningen, The Netherlands), Raymond Lo, Yap Boh Chu, Janene Laird, and the late Jacek Kryg who passed away unexpectedly in November, 2023 of the International Feng Shui Association (Singapore, Singapore). We are also grateful for the help of Andrew Mead of MTR Corporation Limited (Hong Kong, China), Yvonne Lo of Ylo Production Creative Agency (Hong Kong, China), Lawrence Pang of the Academy of Chinese Wisdom and Management (Hong Kong, China), and Mario Livio of the University of Nevada (Las Vegas, USA). Moreover, authors thank the Department of Facilities and Estates of the University Medical Centre Groningen (Groningen, The Netherlands), the Dutch Patient Federation (Utrecht, The Netherlands), the International Feng Shui Association (Singapore, Singapore), the Research Centre for Built Environment NoorderRuimte, the Institute of Future Environments, and the Executive Board of Hanze University of Applied Sciences (Groningen, The Netherlands), the Dutch Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (The Hague, The Netherlands), and the Dutch Taskforce for Applied Research SIA-Dutch Research Council NWO (Utrecht, The Netherlands) for endorsing this research.

• 1. Livio M. The Golden Ratio. New York: Broadway Books; 2002.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Fechner GT. Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel; 1876.
• 21. Zijlstra E. The impact of the hospital environment: Understanding the experience of the patient journey. 2021. Available: https://www.hanze.nl/assets/kc-noorderruimte/facility-management/Documents/Public/ThesisEmmaZijlstra-Theimpactofthehospital environment%28excl.ch6%29.pdf
• 36. Konishi S, Kitagawa G. Information criteria and statistical modeling. New York: Springer; 2008.

Gene variants foretell the biology of future breast cancers

A Stanford Medicine study of thousands of breast cancers has found that the gene sequences we inherit at conception are powerful predictors of the breast cancer type we might develop decades later and how deadly it might be.

The study challenges the dogma that most cancers arise as the result of random mutations that accumulate during our lifetimes. Instead, it points to the active involvement of gene sequences we inherit from our parents -- what's known as your germline genome -- in determining whether cells bearing potential cancer-causing mutations are recognized and eliminated by the immune system or skitter under the radar to become nascent cancers.

"Apart from a few highly penetrant genes that confer significant cancer risk, the role of heredity factors remains poorly understood, and most malignancies are assumed to result from random errors during cell division or bad luck," said Christina Curtis, PhD, the RZ Cao Professor of Medicine and a professor of genetics and of biomedical data science. "This would imply that tumor initiation is random, but that is not what we observe. Rather, we find that the path to tumor development is constrained by hereditary factors and immunity. This new result unearths a new class of biomarkers to forecast tumor progression and an entirely new way of understanding breast cancer origins."

Curtis is the senior author of the study, which will be published May 31 in Science . Postdoctoral scholar Kathleen Houlahan, PhD, is the lead author of the research.

"Back in 2015, we had posited that some tumors are 'born to be bad' -- meaning that their malignant and even metastatic potential is determined early in the disease course," Curtis said. "We and others have since corroborated this finding across multiple tumors, but these findings cast a whole new light on just how early this happens."

A new take on cancer's origin

The study, which gives a nuanced and powerful new understanding of the interplay between newly arisen cancer cells and the immune system, is likely to help researchers and clinicians better predict and combat breast tumors.

Currently, only a few high-profile cancer-associated mutations in genes are regularly used to predict cancers. Those include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which occur in about one of every 500 women and confer an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer, and rarer mutations in a gene called TP53 that causes a disease called Li Fraumeni syndrome, which predisposes to childhood and adult-onset tumors.

The findings indicate there are tens or hundreds of additional gene variants -- identifiable in healthy people -- pulling the strings that determine why some people remain cancer-free throughout their lives.

"Our findings not only explain which subtype of breast cancer an individual is likely to develop," Houlahan said, "but they also hint at how aggressive and prone to metastasizing that subtype will be. Beyond that, we anticipate that these inherited variants may influence a person's risk of developing breast cancer."

The genes we inherit from our parents are known as our germline genome. They're mirrors of our parents' genetic makeup, and they can vary among people in small ways that give some of us blue eyes, brown hair or type O blood. Some inherited genes include mutations that confer increased cancer risk from the get-go, such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53. But identifying other germline mutations strongly associated with future cancers has proven difficult.

In contrast, most cancer-associated genes are part of what's known as our somatic genome. As we live our lives, our cells divide and die in the tens of millions. Each time the DNA in a cell is copied, mistakes happen and mutations can accumulate. DNA in tumors is often compared with the germline genomes in blood or normal tissues in an individual to pinpoint which changes likely led to the cell's cancerous transformation.

Classifying breast cancers

In 2012, Curtis began a deep dive -- assisted by machine learning -- into the types of somatic mutations that occur in thousands of breast cancers. She was eventually able to categorize the disease into 11 subtypes with varying prognoses and risk of recurrence, finding that four of the 11 groups were significantly more likely to recur even 10 or 20 years after diagnosis -- critical information for clinicians making treatment decisions and discussing long-term prognoses with their patients.

Prior studies had shown that people with inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations tend to develop a subtype of breast cancer known as triple negative breast cancer. This correlation implies some behind-the-scenes shenanigans by the germline genome that affects what subtype of breast cancer someone might develop.

"We wanted to understand how inherited DNA might sculpt how a tumor evolves," Houlahan said. To do so, they took a close look at the immune system.

It's a quirk of biology that even healthy cells routinely decorate their outer membranes with small chunks of the proteins they have bobbing in their cytoplasm -- an outward display that reflects their inner style.

The foundations for this display are what's known as HLA proteins, and they are highly variable among individuals. Like fashion police, immune cells called T cells prowl the body looking for any suspicious or overly flashy bling (called epitopes) that might signal something is amiss inside the cell. A cell infected with a virus will display bits of viral proteins; a sick or cancerous cell will adorn itself with abnormal proteins. These faux pas trigger the T cells to destroy the offenders.

Houlahan and Curtis decided to focus on oncogenes, normal genes that, when mutated, can free a cell from regulatory pathways meant to keep it on the straight and narrow. Often, these mutations take the form of multiple copies of the normal gene, arranged nose to tail along the DNA -- the result of a kind of genomic stutter called amplification. Amplifications in specific oncogenes drive different cancer pathways and were used to differentiate one breast cancer subtype from another in Curtis' original studies.

The importance of bling

The researchers wondered whether highly recognizable epitopes would be more likely to attract T cells' attention than other, more modest displays (think golf-ball-sized, dangly turquoise earrings versus a simple silver stud). If so, a cell that had inherited a flashy version of an oncogene might be less able to pull off its amplification without alerting the immune system than a cell with a more modest version of the same gene. (One pair of overly gaudy turquoise earrings can be excused; five pairs might cause a patrolling fashionista T cell to switch from tutting to terminating.)

The researchers studied nearly 6,000 breast tumors spanning various stages of disease to learn whether the subtype of each tumor correlated with the patients' germline oncogene sequences. They found that people who had inherited an oncogene with a high germline epitope burden (read: lots of bling) -- and an HLA type that can display that epitope prominently -- were significantly less likely to develop breast cancer subtypes in which that oncogene is amplified.

There was a surprise, though. The researchers found that cancers with a large germline epitope burden that manage to escape the roving immune cells early in their development tended to be more aggressive and have a poorer prognosis than their more subdued peers.

"At the early, pre-invasive stage, a high germline epitope burden is protective against cancer," Houlahan said. "But once it's been forced to wrestle with the immune system and come up with mechanisms to overcome it, tumors with high germline epitope burden are more aggressive and prone to metastasis. The pattern flips during tumor progression."

"Basically, there is a tug of war between tumor and immune cells," Curtis said. "In the preinvasive setting, the nascent tumor may initially be more susceptible to immune surveillance and destruction. Indeed, many tumors are likely eliminated in this manner and go unnoticed. However, the immune system does not always win. Some tumor cells may not be eliminated and those that persist develop ways to evade immune recognition and destruction. Our findings shed light on this opaque process and may inform the optimal timing of therapeutic intervention, as well as how to make an immunologically cold tumor become hot, rendering it more sensitive to therapy."

The researchers envision a future when the germline genome is used to further stratify the 11 breast cancer subtypes identified by Curtis to guide treatment decisions and improve prognoses and monitoring for recurrence. The study's findings may also give additional clues in the hunt for personalized cancer immunotherapies and may enable clinicians to one day predict a healthy person's risk of cancer from a simple blood sample.

"We started with a bold hypothesis," Curtis said. "The field had not thought about tumor origins and evolution in this way. We're examining other cancers through this new lens of heredity and acquired factors and tumor-immune co-evolution."

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grants DP1-CA238296 and U54CA261719), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub.

• Breast Cancer
• Brain Tumor
• Lung Cancer
• Colon Cancer
• Diseases and Conditions
• Ovarian Cancer
• Breast cancer
• Monoclonal antibody therapy
• Mammography
• Breast implant
• Colorectal cancer
• Breast reconstruction

Story Source:

Materials provided by Stanford Medicine . Original written by Krista Conger. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Kathleen E. Houlahan, Aziz Khan, Noah F. Greenwald, Cristina Sotomayor Vivas, Robert B. West, Michael Angelo, Christina Curtis. Germline-mediated immunoediting sculpts breast cancer subtypes and metastatic proclivity . Science , 2024; 384 (6699) DOI: 10.1126/science.adh8697

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Myelination May Drive Drug Addiction
• Freshwater On Earth 4 Billion Years Ago
• Extended Battle: 3,500-Year-Old Mycenaean Armor
• Oral Insulin Drops: Relief for Diabetes Patients
• AIs Are Irrational, but Not Like Humans
• Bronze Age Cuisine of Mongolian Nomads
• Poor Quality Diet Makes Our Brains Sad
• AI Improves Performance Across Fusion Devices
• New Explanation for Why Earthquakes Happen
• Electrified Charcoal 'Sponge' Soaks Up CO2 ...

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.