what is desk review in research methodology pdf

What Is Desk Research? Meaning, Methodology, Examples

Apr 4, 2024

10 min. read

Research in the digital age takes many shapes and forms. There are traditional methods that collect first-hand data via testing, focus groups, interviews, and proprietary data. And then there are ways to tap into the time and effort others have put into research, playing “armchair detective” by conducting desk research .

Desk research gives you a shortcut to insights by pulling data from other resources, which is crucial for understanding the customer journey . It takes less time and is more cost-effective compared to conducting primary market research . Most importantly, it can give you the consumer insights you need to make important business decisions.

Let’s explore the official desk research definition along with types of desk research, methodologies, examples, and how to do desk research effectively.

Desk Research Meaning: What is Desk Research?

Advantages and limitations of desk research, desk research methodology and methods, how to conduct desk research effectively, best practices for desk research, applications of desk research, how to conduct desk research with meltwater.

Desk Research definition: Desk research, also known as secondary research or complementary research , involves gathering information and data from existing sources, such as books, journals, articles, websites, reports, and other published materials. Users analyze and synthesize information from already available information.

Companies use desk research at the onset of a project to gain a better understanding of a topic, identify knowledge gaps, and inform the next stages of research. It can also supplement original findings and provide context and background information.

Desk research gives marketers attractive advantages over traditional primary research, but it’s not without its shortcomings. Let’s explore these in more detail.

Desk research advantages

• Quick insights. Conducting interviews, focus groups, panels, and tests can take weeks or even months, along with additional time to analyze your findings. With desk research, you can pull from existing information to gain similar results in less time.
• Cost-effectiveness. Desk market research is usually less expensive than primary research because it requires less time and fewer resources. You don’t have to recruit participants or administer surveys, for example.
• Accessibility. There’s a world of data out there ready for you to leverage, including online databases, research studies, libraries, and archives.
• Diverse sources. Desk market research doesn’t limit you to one information source. You can use a combination of sources to gain a comprehensive overview of a topic.

Want to see how Meltwater can supercharge your market research efforts? Simply fill out the form at the bottom of this post and we'll be in touch.

Desk research limitations 

• Data quality. Marketers don’t know how reliable or valid the data is, which is why it’s important to choose your sources carefully. Only use data from credible sources, ideally ones that do not have a financial interest in the data’s findings.
• Less control. Users are at the mercy of the data that’s available and cannot tailor it to their needs. There’s no opportunity to ask follow-up questions or address specific research needs.
• Potential bias. Some sources may include biased findings and/or outdated information, which can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Users can mitigate the risk of bias by relying only on credible sources or corroborating evidence with multiple sources.

Desk research typically involves multiple sources and processes to gain a comprehensive understanding of an idea. There are two main desk methodologies: qualitative research and quantitative research .

• Qualitative research refers to analyzing existing data (e.g., interviews, surveys, observations) to gain insights into people's behaviors, motivations, and opinions. This method delves deeper into the context and meaning behind the data.
• Quantitative research refers to analyzing and interpreting numerical data to draw conclusions and make predictions. This involves quantifying patterns and trends to find relationships between variables.

Both desk research methodologies use a variety of methods to find and analyze data and make decisions.

Examples of desk research methods include but are not limited to:

• Literature review. Analyze findings from various types of literature, including medical journals, studies, academic papers, books, articles, online publications, and government agencies.
• Competitor analysis . Learn more about the products, services, and strategies of your competitors, including identifying their strengths and weaknesses, market gaps, and overall sentiment.
• Social listening . Discover trending topics and sentiments on social media channels to learn more about your target audience and brand health.
• Consumer intelligence . Understand your audience based on digital behaviors, triggers, web usage patterns, and interests.
• Market research . Analyze market reports, industry trends, demographics, and consumer buying patterns to identify market opportunities and strengthen your positioning.

Now let’s look at how to use these methods to their full potential.

While desk research techniques can vary, they all follow a similar formula. Here’s how you can conduct desk research effectively, even if it’s your first time.

1. Define your objective

Desk research starts with a specific question you want to answer. 

In marketing , your objective might be to:

• Learn about Gen Z buying behaviors for home goods
• Gauge the effectiveness of influencer marketing for food brands
• Understand the pain points of your competitor’s customers

These questions can help you find credible sources that can provide answers.

2. Choose reliable data sources

Based on your objectives, start collecting secondary data sources that have done the heavy lifting for you. Examples include:

• Market reports (often available as gated assets from research companies)
• Trade publications
• Academic journals
• Company websites
• Government publications and data
• Online databases and resources, such as Google Scholar 
• Secondary research companies or market research tools like Meltwater and Linkfluence
• Online blogs, articles, case studies, and white papers from credible sources

In many cases, you’ll use a combination of these source types to gain a thorough answer to your question.

3. Start gathering evidence

Go through your source materials to start answering your question. This is usually the most time-intensive part of desk research; you’ll need to extract insights and do some fact-checking to trust those insights.

One of your top priorities in this step is to use reliable sources. Here are some ways you can evaluate sources to use in your desk research:

• Consider the authority and reputation of the source (e.g., do they have expertise in your subject)
• Check whether the content is sponsored, which could indicate bias
• Assess whether the data is current
• Evaluate the publisher’s peer review processes , if applicable
• Review the content’s citations and references
• Seek consensus among multiple sources
• Use sources with built-in credibility, such as .gov or .edu sites or well-known medical and academic journals

If your source materials have supporting elements, such as infographics, charts, or graphs, include those with your desk research.

4. Cross-reference your findings with other sources

For desk research to be effective, you need to be able to trust the data you find. One way to build trust is to cross-reference your findings with other sources. 

For instance, you might see who else is citing the same sources you are in their research. If there are reputable companies using those same sources, you might feel they’re more credible compared to a random internet fact that lacks supporting evidence. 

5. Draw your conclusions & document the results

Organize and synthesize your findings in a way that makes sense for your objectives. Consider your stakeholders and why the information is important.

For example, the way you share your research with an internal team might have a different structure and tone compared to a client-facing document.

Bonus tip: Include a list of sources with your documentation to build credibility in your findings. 

When conducting desk research, follow these best practices to ensure a reliable and helpful outcome.

Organize and manage your research data

It’s helpful to have a system to organize your research data. This way, you can easily go back to review sources or share information with others. Spreadsheets, databases, and platforms like Meltwater for market research are great options to keep your desk research in one place.

Create actionable recommendations

It’s not enough to state your findings; make sure others know why the data matters. Share the data along with your conclusions and recommendations for what to do next.

Remember, desk research is about decision-making, not the data itself.

Document your sources

Whether you choose to share your sources or not, it’s best practice to document your sources for your own records. This makes it easier to provide evidence if someone asks for it or to look back at your research if you have additional questions.

Now for the big question: How can marketers apply desk research to their day-to-day tasks?

Try these desk research examples to power your marketing efforts.

Use desk research for market intelligence

Markets, preferences, and buying habits change over time, and marketers need to stay up to date on their industries. Desk research can provide market intelligence insights, including new competitors, trends, and audience segments that may impact your business.

Apply desk research in competitive analysis

Desk research can help you identify your true competitors and provide more context about their strengths and weaknesses. Marketers can use this intel to improve their positioning and messaging. For instance, a competitor’s weak spot might be something your company does well, and you can emphasize this area in your messaging.

Include desk research in content strategy and audience analysis

Desk research can support consumer intelligence by helping you define various audience segments and how to market to them. These insights can help you develop content and creative assets on the right topics and in the right formats, as well as share them in the best channels to reach your audience.

Emerging technologies like Meltwater's integrated suite of solutions have a strong impact on desk research, helping you streamline how you find and vet data to support your desired topics.

Using a combination of data science, AI, and market research expertise, Meltwater offers the largest media database of its kind to help marketers learn more about their audience and how to connect with them. Millions of real-time data points cover all niches, topics, and industries, giving you the on-demand insights you need.

Our clients use Meltwater for desk research to measure audience sentiment and identify audience segments as well as to conduct competitor analysis , social listening , and brand monitoring , all of which benefit from real-time data. 

Learn more about how you can leverage Meltwater as a research solution when you request a demo by filling out the form below:

Continue Reading

How To Do Market Research: Definition, Types, Methods

How to Gain a Sustainable Competitive Advantage with Porter's 3 Strategies

What Are Consumer Insights? Meaning, Examples, Strategy

Consumer Intelligence: Definition & Examples

The 13 Best Market Research Tools

• Desk Research: Definition, Types, Application, Pros & Cons

If you are looking for a way to conduct a research study while optimizing your resources, desk research is a great option. Desk research uses existing data from various sources, such as books, articles, websites, and databases, to answer your research questions. 

Let’s explore desk research methods and tips to help you select the one for your research.

What Is Desk Research?

Desk research, also known as secondary research or documentary research, is a type of research that relies on data that has already been collected and published by others. Its data sources include public libraries, websites, reports, surveys, journals, newspapers, magazines, books, podcasts, videos, and other sources. 

When performing desk research, you are not gathering new information from primary sources such as interviews, observations, experiments, or surveys. The information gathered will then be used to make informed decisions.

The most common use cases for desk research are market research , consumer behavior , industry trends , and competitor analysis .

How Is Desk Research Used?

Here are the most common use cases for desk research:

• Exploring a new topic or problem
• Identifying existing knowledge gaps
• Reviewing the literature on a specific subject
• Finding relevant data and statistics
• Analyzing trends and patterns
• Evaluating competitors and market trends
• Supporting or challenging hypotheses
• Validating or complementing primary research

Types of Desk Research Methods

There are two main types of desk research methods: qualitative and quantitative. 

• Qualitative Desk Research 

Analyzing non-numerical data, such as texts, images, audio, or video. Here are some examples of qualitative desk research methods:

Content analysis – Examining the content and meaning of texts, such as articles, books, reports, or social media posts. It uses data to help you identify themes, patterns, opinions, attitudes, emotions, or biases.

Discourse analysis – Studying the use of language and communication in texts, such as speeches, interviews, conversations, or documents. It helps you understand how language shapes reality, influences behavior, constructs identities, creates power relations, and more.

Narrative analysis – Analyzing the stories and narratives that people tell in texts, such as biographies, autobiographies, memoirs, or testimonials. This allows you to explore how people make sense of their experiences, express their emotions, construct their identities, or cope with challenges.

• Quantitative Desk Research

Analyzing numerical data, such as statistics, graphs, charts, or tables. 

Here are common examples of quantitative desk research methods:

Statistical analysis : This method involves applying mathematical techniques and tools to numerical data, such as percentages ratios, averages, correlations, or regressions.

You can use statistical analysis to measure, describe, compare, or test relationships in the data.

Meta-analysis : Combining and synthesizing the results of multiple studies on a similar topic or question. Meta-analysis can help you increase the sample size, reduce the margin of error, or identify common findings or discrepancies in data.

Trend analysis : This method involves examining the changes and developments in numerical data over time, such as sales, profits, prices, or market share. It helps you identify patterns, cycles, fluctuations, or anomalies. 

Examples of Desk Research

Here are some real-life examples of desk research questions:

• What are the current trends and challenges in the fintech industry?
• How do Gen Z consumers perceive money and financial services?
• What are the best practices for conducting concept testing for a new fintech product?
• Documentary on World War II and its effect on Austria as a country

You can use the secondary data sources listed below to answer these questions:

Industry reports and publications

• Market research surveys and studies
• Academic journals and papers
• News articles and blogs
• Podcasts and videos
• Social media posts and reviews
• Government and non-government agencies

How to Choose the Best Type of Desk Research

The main factors for selecting a desk research method are:

• Research objective and question
• Budget and deadlines
• Data sources availability and accessibility.
• Quality and reliability of data sources
• Your data analysis skills

Let’s say your research question requires an in-depth analysis of a particular topic, a literature review may be the best method. But if the research question requires analysis of large data sets, you can use trend analysis.

Differences Between Primary Research and Desk Research

The main difference between primary research and desk research is the source of data. Primary research uses data that is collected directly from the respondents or participants of the study. Desk research uses data that is collected by someone else for a different purpose.

Another key difference is the cost and time involved. Primary research is usually more expensive, time-consuming, and resource-intensive than desk research. However, it can also provide you with more specific, accurate, and actionable data that is tailored to your research goal and question.

The best practice is to use desk-based research before primary research; it refines the scope of the work and helps you optimize resources.

Read Also – Primary vs Secondary Research Methods: 15 Key Differences

How to Conduct a Desk Research

Here are the four main steps to conduct desk research:

• Define Research Goal and Question

What do you want to achieve with your desk research? What problem do you want to solve or what opportunity do you want to explore? What specific question do you want to answer with your desk research?

• Identify and Evaluate Data Sources

Where can you find relevant data for your desk research? How relevant and current are the data sources for your research? How consistent and comparable are they with each other? 

You can evaluate your data sources based on factors such as- 

– Authority: Who is the author or publisher of the data source? What are their credentials and reputation? Are they experts or credible sources on the topic?

– Accuracy: How accurate and precise is the data source? Does it contain any errors or mistakes? Is it supported by evidence or references?

– Objectivity: How objective and unbiased is the data source? Does it present facts or opinions? Does it have any hidden agenda or motive?

– Coverage: How comprehensive and complete is the data source? Does it cover all aspects of your topic? Does it provide enough depth and detail?

– Currency: How current and up-to-date is the data source? When was it published or updated? Is it still relevant to your topic?

• Collect and Analyze Your Data

How can you collect your data efficiently and effectively? What tools or techniques can you use to organize and analyze your data? How can you interpret your data with your research goal and question?

• Present and Report Your Findings

How can you communicate your findings clearly and convincingly? What format or medium can you use to accurately record your findings?

You can use spreadsheets, presentation slides, charts, infographics, and more.

Advantages of Desk Research

• Cost Effective

It is cheaper and faster than primary research, you don’t have to collect new data or report them. You can simply analyze and leverage your findings to make deductions.

• Prevents Effort Duplication

Desk research provides you with a broad and thorough overview of the research topic and related issues. This helps to avoid duplication of efforts and resources by using existing data.

• Improves Data Validity

Using desk research, you can compare and contrast various perspectives and opinions on the same topic. This enhances the credibility and validity of your research by referencing authoritative sources.

• Identify Data Trends and Patterns

 It helps you to identify new trends and patterns in the data that may not be obvious from primary research. This can help you see knowledge and research gaps to offer more effective solutions.

Disadvantages of Desk Research

• Outdated Information

One of the main challenges of desk research is that the data may not be relevant, accurate, or up-to-date for the specific research question or purpose. Desk research relies on data that was collected for a different reason or context, which may not match the current needs or goals of the researcher.

• Limited Scope

Another limitation of desk research is that it may not provide enough depth or insight into qualitative aspects of the market, such as consumer behavior, preferences, motivations, or opinions. 

Data obtained from existing sources may be biased or incomplete due to the agenda or perspective of the source.

Read More – Research Bias: Definition, Types + Examples

• Data Inconsistencies

It may also be inconsistent or incompatible with other data sources due to different definitions or methodologies.

• Legal and Technical Issues

Desk research data may also be difficult to access or analyze due to legal, ethical, or technical issues.

How to Use Desk Research Effectively

Here are some tips on how to use desk research effectively:

• Define the research problem and objectives clearly and precisely.
• Identify and evaluate the sources of secondary data carefully and critically.
• Compare and contrast different sources of data to check for consistency and reliability.
• Use multiple sources of data to triangulate and validate the findings.
• Supplement desk research with primary research when exploring deeper issues.
• Cite and reference the sources of data properly and ethically.

Desk research should not be used as a substitute for primary research, but rather as a complement or supplement. Combine it with primary research methods, such as surveys, interviews, observations, experiments, and others to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of your research topic.

Desk research is a cost-effective tool for gaining insights into your research topic. Although it has limitations, if you choose the right method and carry out your desk research effectively, you will save a lot of time, money, and effort that primary research would require.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• desk research
• market research
• primary vs secondary research
• research bias
• secondary research
• Moradeke Owa

You may also like:

25 Research Questions for Subscription Pricing

After strategically positioning your product in the market to generate awareness and interest in your target audience, the next step is...

Judgmental Sampling: Definition, Examples and Advantages

Introduction Judgment sampling is a type of non-random sampling method used in survey research and data collection. It is a method in...

Projective Techniques In Surveys: Definition, Types & Pros & Cons

Introduction When you’re conducting a survey, you need to find out what people think about things. But how do you get an accurate and...

What is Thematic Analysis & How to Do It

Introduction Thematic Analysis is a qualitative research method that plays a crucial role in understanding and interpreting data. It...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• HIV and AIDS
• Hypertension
• Mental disorders
• Top 10 causes of death
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• Data collection tools
• Global Health Observatory
• Insights and visualizations
• COVID excess deaths
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Data collection tools /
• Health service data /
• Data quality assurance (DQA) /
• Module 2: Desk review

Discrete desk review of data quality

Related links

The desk review is an evaluation of data quality dimensions of completeness, internal consistency, external comparisons and external consistency of population data. Normally, the desk review requires monthly or quarterly data by sub-national administrative area for the most recent reporting year, and annual aggregated data for the last three reporting years for the selected indicators.

District data quality assurance: a training package for monthly use of DHIS2 data quality dashboards at district and health facility levels

This training package aims to improve the quality of RHIS data through building capacity in the regular use of DHIS 2-based data quality tools at district level. Two approaches are presented:

• the DHIS2 version of the WHO Data Quality Tool;
• specially-configured data quality dashboards that are visible when users log into the DHIS2 website. 

The package includes set of tutorials and an exercise book that can be used in workshops or for self-learning. 

Data quality assurance: module 2: discrete desk review of data quality

Tools:  

Excel tool 

         Installation and User Guide           Analysis Guidance

Presentations on Module 2: Desk Review

District Data Quality Assurance Training  Package

For full materials of Desk Review training, contact  [email protected]

• Customer Relationship Management

Desk Research - Methodology and Techniques

As depicted by name Desk Research is the research technique which is mainly acquired by sitting at a desk .

Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive’s time, telephone charges and directories. However, it could also be a complete waste of time and money if the researcher does not have the proper knowledge of how the research is performed.

Desk research is very effective and can be conducted in starting phase of market research as it is quite quick and cheap and most of the basic information could be easily fetched which can be used as benchmark in the research process.

There are basically two types of desk research techniques:

The main advantage here in performing internal desk research is that it involves internal and existing organizational resources to organize the collected data in such a way that it is not only efficient but also usable. Internal desk research is comparatively very cheap and effective as internal recourses are deputed and the expenditure in getting data from outside is less.

There could be two approaches for digging out the relevant information from internet, one is directly browsing the specific information from industrial, marketing or business sites and extracting the information out of these sites. Secondly, using the various search engines like www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.infoseek.go.com, www.altavista.com etc, for modulated searching.

The important aspect here is to refine the searching techniques in such a way that results are promising and relevant. For this it is necessary that the researcher should know the importance of the research and follow the guideline intellectually to reduce the efforts made and time consumed in searching.

Customers are the one who are considered the most informed as they are actually using products and services and are aware of the current market trends more than any other. Hence the feedback and information provided by customers is the most accurate and useful data which can be used most effectively in the further process of research.

  Related Articles

• Customer Relationship Measurement
• Market Research and CRM
• Market Research Process
• Field Research
• Data Analysis and Compilation

View All Articles

Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)

The article is Written and Reviewed by Management Study Guide Content Team . MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. We are a ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider . To Know more, click on About Us . The use of this material is free for learning and education purpose. Please reference authorship of content used, including link(s) to ManagementStudyGuide.com and the content page url.

• Origin of CRM
• Features of CRM
• Importance of CRM
• CRM and Marketing
• Misunderstandings about CRM
• Benefits and Challenges of CRM Software
• CRM (Customer Relationship Management) Software and Its Importance
• What is Customer Relationship
• Types of Customers
• Orientation of Customers
• Customer Modeling
• Customer Profiling
• Regression Scoring
• Quality of Relatiosnhip with Customers
• Need of Relatiosnhip with Customers
• Customer Relationship with Supplier
• Cost Sensitivity of Customers
• Bargaining Power of Customers
• Desk Research
• Report Preparation
• Action Plan in Report Preparation
• Strategic CRM
• Operational CRM
• Analytical CRM
• Collaborative CRM
• Customer’s Response - Introduction
• Measuring Customer Response
• Medium of Customer Responses
• Qualities of a Good Response
• Response in Consumer Sector
• Response in Core Sector
• Customer Acquisition - Introduction
• Customer Life Cycle
• Customer Acquisition Cost
• Measuring Acquisition Equity
• Customer Loyalty - Introduction
• Customer Loyalty & Satisfaction
• Drivers of Customer Loyalty
• Customer Loyalty Breakers
• Tracking Customer Loyalty
• Increasing Customer Loyalty
• Customer Satisfaction
• Why Dissatisfaction in Customers
• Measuring Customer Satisfaction
• Methods of Measuring Satisfaction
• Factors affecting Customer Satisfaction
• Customer Retention - Introduction
• Customer Retention Strategy
• Determinants of Customer Retention
• Methods/Tools for Customer Retention
• Myths about Customer Retention
• Benefits of Cloud CRM for Small Businesses
• Practical Tips for Effectively Implementing Salesforce

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > How to Do Research
• > Desk research

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Types of research
• Part 1 The research process
• Part 2 Methods
• 9 Introducing research methods
• 10 Desk research
• 11 Analysing desk research
• 12 Collecting quantitative data
• 13 Analysing quantitative data
• 14 Collecting qualitative data
• 15 Analysing qualitative data
• 16 Sources of further reading
• Appendix The market for information professionals: A proposal from the Policy Studies Institute

10 - Desk research

from Part 2 - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2018

Not all research is about collecting new data – or primary data as it is known in the trade. A great deal can be achieved by working with data that have already been collected and processed by others. Indeed, most good research begins with a review of what has gone before. This type of research is often referred to as desk research.

Some projects are solely concerned with desk research, relying entirely on the re-analysis of other people's research or on secondary analysis of data that have been collected by others. Even the research that is based on the collection of primary data usually has an element of desk research built in. Few researchers, for example, feel able to manage without some form of literature review or contextual work to position their research.

Desk research covers a range of activities. Literature reviews are the most common. Increasingly the term ‘literature’ needs to be expanded to include material found on the internet. Closely allied to these reviews, and growing in importance, are research reviews which focus on the analysis of actual research findings from a number of different studies. There is also secondary analysis of data where the focus is firmly on the reworking of existing data sets to develop new insights into issues.

This chapter concentrates on the collection of the material used in desk research. The analytical techniques will be dealt with in Chapter 11.

Literature and internet searching

This is a very important part of nearly all research projects, yet it is something that is often dealt with superficially.

No research project exists in isolation. Each piece of work relates in some way to the environment within which the research takes place, to the theories and concepts that have been developed to explain the environmental conditions and to other research on the topic. If your work is to have coherence and relevance you should take full account of what has gone before and what is going on around you. You therefore need to make sure you are fully aware of all the relevant literature on the subject.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Desk research
• Book: How to Do Research
• Online publication: 09 June 2018
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049825.011

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

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

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

Home Market Research

Desk Research: What it is, Tips & Examples

What is desk research?

Desk research is a type of research that is based on the material published in reports and similar documents that are available in public libraries, websites, data obtained from surveys already carried out, etc. Some organizations also store data that can be used for research purposes.

It is a research method that involves the use of existing data. These are collected and summarized to increase the overall effectiveness of the investigation.

Secondary research is much more cost-effective than primary research , as it uses existing data, unlike primary research, in which data is collected first-hand by organizations, companies, or may employ a third party to obtain the data in your name.

LEARN ABOUT: Data Management Framework

Desk research examples

Being a cost-effective method, desk research is a popular choice for businesses and organizations as not everyone can pay large sums of money to conduct research and collect data. That is why it’s also called “ documentary research “.

Here are some more common secondary research methods and examples:

1. Data available on the Internet: One of the most popular ways to collect data for desk research is through the Internet. The information is available and can be downloaded with just one click.

This data is practically free or you may have to pay a negligible amount for it. Websites have a lot of information that companies or organizations can use to meet their research needs. However, you need to consider a reliable website to collect information.

2. Government and non-government agencies: Data for secondary research can also be collected from some government and non-government agencies. There will always be valuable and relevant data that companies or organizations can use.

3. Public libraries: Public libraries are another good source to search for data by doing desk research. They have copies of important research that has been done before. They are a store of documents from which relevant information can be extracted.

The services offered at these public libraries vary. Most often, they have a huge collection of government publications with market statistics, a large collection of business directories, and newsletters.

4. Educational Institutions: The importance of collecting data from educational institutions for secondary research is often overlooked. However, more research is done in colleges and universities than in any other business sector.

The data collected by universities is mainly used for primary research. However, companies or organizations can go to educational institutions and request data.

5. Sources of business information: Newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations are a great source of data for desk research. These sources have first-hand information on economic developments, the political agenda, the market, demographic segmentation and similar topics.

Companies or organizations can request to obtain the most relevant data for their study. Not only do they have the opportunity to identify your potential customers, but they can also learn the ways to promote their products or services through these sources, as they have a broader scope.

Differences between primary research and Desk Research

How to do a desk research

These are the steps to follow to conduct a desk investigation:

• Identify the research topic: Before you begin, identify the topic you need to research. Once done, make a list of the attributes of the research and its purpose.
• Identify research sources: Subsequently, explain the sources of information that will provide you with the most relevant data applicable to your research.
• Collect existing data: Once the sources of information collection have been narrowed, check to see if previous data is available that is closely related to the topic. They can be obtained from various sources, such as newspapers, public libraries, government and non-government agencies, etc.
• Combine and compare: Once the data is collected, combine and compare it so that the information is not duplicated and put it together in an accessible format. Make sure to collect data from authentic sources so you don’t get in the way of your investigation.
• Analyze data: Analyze the data that is collected and identify if all the questions have been answered. If not, repeat the process to dig deeper into practical ideas.
• Most of the information is secondary research and readily available. There are many sources from which the data you need can be collected and used, as opposed to primary research, where data must be collected from scratch.
• It is a less expensive and time-consuming process, as the required data is readily available and does not cost much if it is extracted from authentic sources.
• The data that is collected through secondary or desktop research gives organizations or companies an idea about the effectiveness of primary research. Thus, a hypothesis can be formed and the cost of conducting the primary research can be evaluated.
• Doing desk research is faster due to the availability of data. It can be completed in a few weeks, depending on the objective of the companies or the scale of the data required.

Disadvantages

• Although the data is readily available, the credibility and authenticity of the available information must be assessed.
• Not all secondary data resources offer the latest reports and statistics. Even when they are accurate, they may not be up to date.

Desk research is a very popular research method, because it uses existing and reliable data that can be easily obtained. This is a great benefit for businesses and organizations as it increases the effectiveness of the investigation.

QuestionPro provides the best market research platform to uncover complex insights that can propel your business to the forefront of your industry.

START A FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

When You Have Something Important to Say, You want to Shout it From the Rooftops

Jun 28, 2024

The Item I Failed to Leave Behind — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Jun 25, 2024

Feedback Loop: What It Is, Types & How It Works?

Jun 21, 2024

QuestionPro Thrive: A Space to Visualize & Share the Future of Technology

Jun 18, 2024

Other categories

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

Introduction to Desk Reviews

Module 1 objectives.

Module Objective : Provide an overview of the desk review purpose and process.

By the end of the module, the learner will have achieved the following learning objectives:

Learning Objective 1 : Learner will be able to explain the purpose of a desk review.

Learning Objective 2 : Learner will be able to distinguish between a desk review and other secondary research approaches.

Learning Objective 3 : Learner will be able to define different types of desk research.

What is a Desk Review?

A desk review is a form of secondary research. Unlike primary research, in which the researcher is uncovering new information and creating new knowledge, secondary research focuses on information that has already been acquired and documented. Secondary research is used to present an overview of the current state of knowledge in a field. It can also be used to highlight areas or gaps in existing information where additional primary research is needed.

It is wise to complete a desk review as an initial step in:

Proposal research and development

Program design

Qualitative or quantitative primary research activities

Community assessments (reviewed in WI-HER's Data Collection for Community Assessments training )

Program reporting

Why complete a desk review?

As secondary research, a desk review serves a very specific purpose. A desk review can rarely completely replace primary research activities. However, it can provide an overview of relevant policies, programs, and primary research that has been completed on your specific topic. Desk reviews are especially helpful if there are a large number of reputable sources that have already written on your topic (you will learn more about assessing the quality of sources in Module 2). To be helpful, information presented in a desk review should be directly relevant to your topic and purpose .

Desk reviews may also help you justify primary research activities; if you can demonstrate a lack of literature on your topic or in your location of interest, you will be more successful in advocating for primary research. This primary research, or field research, will provide an opportunity to collect more specific information related to the work you are doing. For additional information about field research, you can access WI-HER's Data Collection for Community Assessments training .

What is Desk Research?

As the name implies, desk research is research that can be undertaken from your desk. This is why desk research is considered secondary research – it does not require leaving your desk to pursue the acquisition of new information.

There are two types of desk research:

Internal Desk Research : Refers to the review of data, reports, tools, or other resources developed by your organization (either publicly available or not). Depending on the context, it could also include internal information from partner organizations. However, not all information housed within your organization or a partner organization is considered internal. If you are reviewing materials that were produced or created from outside your organization that are kept on record in your organization (for example, an encyclopedia or a copy of a presentation from another organization), you are conducting external desk research.

External Desk Research : Refers to the review of data, reports, tools, or other resources that exist outside of your organization. Module 2 will cover how to find this information from reputable sources.

Other Secondary Research Formats

There are a number of other forms of secondary research with slightly different functions than a desk review, such as literature reviews, systematic reviews, and scoping reviews. The following sources will allow you to explore these common types of secondary research.

Literature Reviews

Please watch the video "What's a Literature Review?" and review the content on the webpage.

Systematic Reviews

Please review the webpage.

Scoping Reviews

Please watch "Part 1: Scoping reviews: an overview with examples" (the first video on the page).

Activity: Compare and Contrast Secondary Research Formats

Use the form below to complete the activity.

Desk Review Process

Pre-writing: the research framework.

Before beginning the desk review, it is important to determine the focus of the review and its scope. For example, you may need to perform a desk review focusing on education systems in Argentina, but within the scope of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, and Math). The focus and scope of your review may be well established based on your project, or it may be pre-determined by your client or research partners, but there may be flexibility. There will also need to be standards established relating to research parameters and style , which will be covered in later modules.

The purpose of the desk review should guide its development. Desk reviews may be used for internal knowledge development for your organization to inform proposal design or activity design. When responding to a request for proposals, the desk review can help identify prior work and opportunities for your organization to develop innovative solutions. The review may also be published for an external audience as a standalone document or as part of a larger report. Desk reviews may also be used as a preface for the presentation of primary research or fieldwork, providing background to the situation and pointing out the gaps in current knowledge future research or fieldwork will then cover.

The introduction of your desk review will include the purpose and rationale for your desk review. It is helpful to establish a clear vision for your desk review with precise limitations on its focus. You should identify a clear research question you would like to answer, and you should identify the aims or objectives necessary to answer this question. This research framework should guide your entire desk review process, and you should return to this framework throughout your research and writing to ensure the information you collect is relevant to the framework. For example, if you are writing a desk review on maternal health in Rwanda, your research framework may look like this:

Research question: What are the factors facilitating or hindering maternal health in Rwanda?

Aim 1: To describe the current development context in Rwanda, with a focus on health and gender.

Aim 2: To understand access to and utilization of maternal health services, including family planning, antenatal care, delivery, postpartum care, and neonatal care.

Aim 3: To review the quality of primary health care services, with an emphasis on services affecting maternal health.

Aim 4: To understand extrinsic sociocultural factors impacting maternal health, including marriage practices, childbearing practices, and economic situations.

Beginning the Writing Process

The review should begin with an outline that highlights key topics and sub-topics that need to be researched to address the main focus and aims of the review. You may need to complete initial key document reviews on your topic before you know what key sections will make up (or be included in) your outline. The WI-HER Desk Review outline, below, provides a helpful outline to begin conceptualizing the format for a desk review. When developing the outline, consider the major topics that are relevant to your area of focus. To return to the example of maternal health in Rwanda, you may develop an outline covering the following topics:

Rwanda: Country Overview

Women’s access to and utilization of care

Quality of primary health care services

Gender-based violence

Child marriage and early pregnancy

Women’s employment and economic independence

The topics you include in your outline should be directly related to your chosen topic, and you should continue to relate each section to your research framework. For example, when discussing women's employment, the information presented should be framed in the context of maternal health. To ensure relevance, you may discuss how childbearing affects employment or earnings or what policies exist for paternity leave or childcare.

During the outline phase, it is also helpful to identify key pieces of information that will be necessary in each section. For example, if providing a brief overview on general health context, it is important to determine what information is most relevant to include; in a desk review relating to maternal health, statistics on antenatal care and maternal mortality will be critical, and other health statistics may not be as useful for inclusion.

After developing an outline, you will have a better understanding of what types of resources you will need to gather. It is important to be thorough in the research process while maintaining efficiency. The research process will be discussed in greater detail in the next module.

The length of the desk review, and the amount of time you should dedicate to the review, will vary widely by project. Some reviews may not need as much information, and sources for certain topics may be more easily accessible or prolific. It is important to establish both the length of the desk review and the timeline for its completion when initially planning your project and developing the outline to ensure you complete an appropriate amount of research and writing. Define clearly with your client and with your colleagues the scope, limits, and timeline for the desk review project. Identify some benchmarks to keep you on track and to mark check-in moments that convene the group to voice challenges and confirm consensus that the targets are still on track. A typical desk review should range between 10 and 15 pages in length. You should likely not exceed 20 pages in length unless there are exceptional circumstances (i.e., large project scope).

The Assessment to Action Guide , developed for the USAID SHOPS Plus project, contains a detailed explanation of the desk review process. Examine the guide. The topics covered in this guide will be explained in greater detail during the course of these modules, but it can serve as a quick reference for you during the desk review process.

Examining a Desk Review

Follow the link to find an example of a desk review developed for the USAID Office of Food for Peace Food Security program in Liberia. Briefly review this document, keep the following questions in mind:

Why do you think this secondary research was necessary?

How is the document structured?

Does this desk review include any primary research?

After reviewing the document, use the button below to complete the activity.

Note: This is a lengthy desk review, and you do not need to read the entire document. Focus on exploring the structure of the document.

Activity: Examining a Desk Review

Wi-her desk review outline.

The WI-HER Desk Review outline, below, was developed based on desk reviews completed in a variety of focal areas. The outline can be easily adapted for a variety of contexts and provides insight into how to structure a desk review and identify important areas of focus.

You may find it useful to download the outline and adapt it for your own use.

Module 1 Knowledge Assessment

After completing all of the activities in Module 1, please complete the module knowledge assessment before proceeding to Module 2. You will receive feedback on all activities and the assessment based on the learning schedule you developed.

Proceed to Module 2

Subscribe to stay in the loop!

Desk research: how to conduct secondary research efficiently.

Prefer to read in Ebook format?

We will send you this complete Ebook to facilitate your reading.

If you're already familiar with UX Design, you know how essential research is to get to know the users of a product and understand their needs. Basically, there are two types of research: primary (where you collect information yourself by…

Sending the ebook

You will receive the ebook directly in your email a few minutes after confirming your request in the form below.

Ebook sending confirmed!

You will receive the ebook directly to your email in a few minutes.

Attention! Please check your spam folder if you cannot find the email in your main box .

Once you find the email in spam, move it to your main box and add the email [email protected] to your contact list, thus preventing other emails from the spam folder.

If you’re already familiar with UX Design, you know how essential research is to get to know the users of a product and understand their needs.

Basically, there are two types of research: primary (where you collect information yourself by surveys, interviews, observations, etc.) and secondary (searching for data compiled from previous findings). Desk Research falls into the second category.

Keep reading to know the best practices and a step-by-step to research successfully from your own desk!

What is Desk Research?

Desk Research is a method that explores data from existing documents and previous research — secondary data — to gather information over a particular topic.

It can provide solid arguments and help you elaborate a line of thought or fight for your ideas. And to do this, Desk Research relies on data already collected from other people.

Therefore, before spending time and money on field visits, prototypes, or usability tests, it’s wise to see what the world already knows that could be relevant for you and your team.

Why should you have a Desk Research?

Desk Research should be used as a research method before starting any Product Design project. It’s always constructive to see what previous studies and experts say about a particular topic, especially if you can take advantage of the information already out there.

Secondary research has the objective of any investigation: to provide information that could support and guide decision-making.

So in terms of objectives , using Desk Research is not that different from Primary Research.

Primary and Secondary Research

Primary and Secondary Research share the same object of study but are different in their process.

Primary research is first-hand research created and tailored to meet specific needs. The source of this kind of research is the individuals or organization behind the investigation.

Additionally, primary research uses raw data, which needs to be filtered and organized in order to be analyzed and reported.

On the other hand, secondary research collects data from previous research, so it doesn’t belong to anyone.

Needless to say, primary research demands more time and money, while secondary research is cheaper and faster to gather results.

Desk Research: where to look?

Since Desk Research relies on other people’s findings, pay close attention to the sources and always run check facts.

There are all kinds of information online so we need to be diligent to filter good quality material.

Also, the internet is not the only possible source of information to carry out Desk Research. You may want to check:

• Existing products in the market;
• Your own organization records;
• Academic records;
• Government organizations;
• Relevant NGO’S.

Products in the market

An insightful resource is observing products that are already on the market.

Furthermore, evaluate the products that your own company has already launched.

Look at the concepts, interactions, and experiences these products provide.

Company records

Go through research and analysis your own company has conducted in the past.

This type of information is extremely valuable to understand ideas, opportunities, and difficulties the company has faced in the past and that can serve as a starting point for your own proposal.

Investigate further, look at the people in charge of these data, and if possible, try to talk to them directly and exchange knowledge about what they have found out, and what you intend to do.

Most of the time, internal research helps to clarify essential points, due to the fact they were applied in the same context, in the same market segment.

External Sources

External research sources are perhaps the most common and widely known. However, as we already mentioned, it’s important to understand which sources are reliable.

With that in mind, we compiled a few aspects for your consideration:

Data available from the Web

Internet is the most popular and accessible source of information there is. With just one click you can download any data or research you want.

Despite much information being available for free, that are company sites that sell information and reports.

If you’re digging the internet for free content, check reliable websites with known expertise in the field.

For example, in the case of research and data about usability, it’s common to rely on data from the Nielsen Norman Group . The consulting firm is an expert on UX, has authority and reputation in the market.

In times when the internet rules the era of information, libraries end up being underestimated. But they can be excellent sources for desk research.

Of course, recent studies will most likely be found online but there may be old interesting research published only on paper. So, apart from books, beware to check articles, papers, and research from a wide range of authors.

Don’t dismiss studies that are not recent. Even if research was carried out a couple of years ago, it can still be extremely relevant and serve to support your ideas, provide you answers, questions, or insights.

Human behavior, for example, changes very slowly, so studies that focus on that, won’t lose its “expiration date” so soon.

Academic Records

In addition to using university libraries, you can search for more specific research conducted by students or professors at the institutions.

As a general rule, educational institutions conduct a variety of primary research that can be requested and used as Desk Research by companies.

Desk Research can also rely on newspapers, magazines, and even news transmitted on TV or radio.

However, it is always important to be diligent when using this type of information because it is generally superficial and informational for the public.

Relying solely on media data can bring biased and shallow information. Nevertheless, it can be a good start for your Desk Research.

A step-by-step to Desk Research

It’s wise to consider a couple of measures to ensure the quality and efficiency of your Desk Research.

So we’ll describe a step-by-step to help you in your endeavor.

Of course, as you gain experience with this research method, you can adapt each step to make it more coherent to the way you work. But be sure to go through them.

1) Define your goal

Before starting the research, identify its purpose: What do you want to know? Which question do you need to answer?

Without a pre-determined objective, you won’t be a good judge whether the information you’re coming across is relevant or not for your project.

Establishing objectives is all about setting a clear path to the questions you want to answer; this will ground you and help you stay focused, so you don’t end up wasting precious time.

Your research objectives can revolve around:

• a number: like seeking to find five articles from different sources or collecting information from 20 user interviews;
• an assumption: here, your goal is to find arguments and information that support your hypothesis. However, make sure to also look for information that may disprove your statement.

2) Map your sources

Will you only use the internet? Or will you also go to public libraries? Are you going to talk to people in your company too?

Mapping the sources you intend to use saves time and prevents you from losing focus. At this stage, identify which sources are more likely to bring you the best results.

Remember to have a plan B, too. For example, if you can’t find all the information on websites, find out what the next trusted source you should be using.

3) Set a deadline

Working with deadlines is another strategy to maintain focus during research.

Determine whether you will invest hours, days, or a few weeks to carry out your Desk Research.

However, keep in mind that we tend to use up all the time assigned to us. So keep it a tight schedule and propose realistic deadlines to help your productivity and your research efficiency.

4) Hands-on

It’s time to carry out your research, keeping in mind: your objective, the deadline, and reliable sources.

Use whichever method you think is best to identify and gather the necessary information: summarizing, filing, highlighting, or copying.

For instance, you can put all your findings on an online whiteboard (like miro.com ).

Remember to seek different views on the same problem. Don’t fall into so-called confirmation bias, where you only collect data that confirms your assumption.

Look for information that may contradict the initial ideas to bring other perspectives that will be essential upon data analysis.

5) Analyze data

A crucial step of Desk Research is analyzing the data collected. First, carefully read the information and review all the findings. Then, go deeper into your study: compare the results of different sources and define the importance of each one.

Next, check if your research answered the questions and met the initially proposed objective.

If not, redo the research or check if the objective is coherent or needs to be changed.

In this step, you should also formalize the information in a way it’s presentable to others; you can write a report or organize your findings into a presentation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Desk Research

• Secondary Research is cheaper than Primary Research. Thus, if your company does not have the budget to conduct interviews and do field observations, desk research is a good solution;
• Desk Research also has a time advantage. Compared to primary Research, secondary Research is much faster to conduct;
• The wide availability of information makes Desk Research easier to execute.

Disadvantages

• The challenge of finding reliable sources. If the research is done over the internet, it is necessary to be very careful with websites and articles you base upon;
• It’s not always possible to find reports and research that is up-to-date and include the most recent information;
• Because it is faster and cheaper, Desk Research can create the false impression that it is the best method to use. However, it is essential to understand that primary research is also relevant and has more focus and objectivity to meet the company’s needs.

Every method, or tool, has its pros and cons. Therefore, you need to assess where you are to decide if Desk Research is the right resource for your project. And, of course, it can always – and should – serve as a starting point for Primary Research.

• The Beginner’s Guide to Desk Research
• Desk research: the what, why and how
• How to use desk research to kick-start your design process
• Secondary Research- Definition, Methods and Examples.
• Secondary Research

Don't forget to like and share if you enjoyed this content! This small gesture helps us a lot! Feel free to continue browsing, and if you'd like to stay up-to-date, sign up for our newsletter !

Usability Test: How To Prepare And Conduct One?

Tree Testing: How Easily Can Users Find The Information They Need?

User Interview: Keys to Gather Insightful Information

Career in Product Design: Self-Awareness to Transform Your Journey and Growth

Career in UX: How to Develop Emotional Resilience

Designer 360: The Epic Path To Be Successful In Design

We are proud to have people from our community hired every month by great companies, in countries such as Brazil, USA, UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Czech Rep., New Zealand, and Canada.

Privacy Overview

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
• Disaster Health
• v.3(4); 2016

Conducting a desk review to inform the mental health and psychosocial support response to the 2016 Ecuador earthquake

M. isabela troya.

a Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK

b Centre for Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

c Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

M. Claire Greene

d Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Clara Gesteira Santos

e Clinical Psychology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

James M. Shultz

f Center for Disaster & Extreme Event Preparedness (DEEP Center), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami FL, USA

Following the 7.8 magnitude earthquake that struck Ecuador on 16 April 2016, multiple salient public health concerns were raised, including the need to provide mental health and psychosocial support for individual survivors and their communities. The World Health Organization and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommend conducting a desk review to summarize existing information, specific to the affected communities, that will support timely, culturally-attuned assessment and delivery of mental health and psychosocial support shortly after the onset of a disaster or humanitarian emergency. The desk review is one component of a comprehensive toolkit designed to inform and support humanitarian actors and their responders in the field.

This commentary provides a case example of the development of a desk review that was used to inform personnel responding to the 2016 earthquake in Ecuador. The desk review process is described in addition to several innovations that were introduced to the process during this iteration. Strengths and limitations are discussed, as well as lessons learned and recommendations for future applications.

Introduction

The earthquake.

At 6:58 PM local time on 16 April 2016, the Andean nation of Ecuador experienced one of the most destructive earthquakes in its history ( Figs. 1,2 ). The final situation report issued by Ecuador's National Secretariat for Risk Management reported that the 7.8 magnitude earthquake resulted in 663 deaths and 6,274 injuries ( Figs. 3,4 ). 1 A total of 113 live rescues were successfully performed. An estimated 28,775 citizens sought emergency shelter. 1 The earthquake triggered widespread structural collapse resulting in destruction or severe damage to more than 1,400 buildings ( Fig. 5 ). Economic costs were assessed at USD 3 billion. In the 6-month review of the earthquake response, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance estimated that 387,000 persons were registered as disaster victims. 2

United States Geological Survey (USGS) “PAGER” Summary for the 16 April 2016 Ecuador Earthquake.

Pacific Disaster Center Map of Ground Shaking Intensity 16 April 2016 Ecuador Earthquake. © Pacific Disaster Center. Reproduced by permission of Pacific Disaster Center. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.

Pacific Disaster Center Map of Earthquake-related Mortality 16 April 2016 Ecuador Earthquake. © Pacific Disaster Center. Reproduced by permission of Pacific Disaster Center. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.

Pacific Disaster Center Map of Earthquake-related Injuries 16 April 2016 Ecuador Earthquake. © Pacific Disaster Center. Reproduced by permission of Pacific Disaster Center. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.

Pacific Disaster Center Map of Earthquake-related Damage to Built Environment 16 April 2016 Ecuador Earthquake. © Pacific Disaster Center. Reproduced by permission of Pacific Disaster Center. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.

This seismic event activated an international humanitarian response that included Red Cross affiliates from several nations, United Nations agencies and partners, a variety of non-governmental organizations, and medical missions from the United States including physician teams from the University Of Miami Miller School of Medicine, among others. Working in coordination with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's Reference Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (IASC RG-MHPSS), the response elevated psychosocial support in emergency settings to priority status.

Background on Ecuador

As the name signifies, Ecuador is a South American continental nation located in tropical latitudes along the equator. The nation is notable for its biodiversity and rich panoply of ecosystems ranging from high Andes to the tranquil Pacific coastline, and from the Amazon River to the offshore Galapagos Islands. Along Ecuador's west coast, the topography rises vertically from sea level to snow-covered mountain peaks, including the Chimborazo volcano, soaring to an altitude of 20,549 feet. Chimborazo is one of Ecuador's 50 volcanoes that punctuate the nation's mountainous western spine. Ecuador's steep mountain ranges form a segment of the famed “Ring of Fire” that outlines the Pacific Ocean with a circlet of tectonic plate boundaries known for their intense seismicity. Ecuador has a history of generating frequent geophysical events that impact both coastal and mountain-dwelling human populations. Thus, Ecuador is extremely vulnerable to a range of interrelated hazards: earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, mudslides, and floods.

Not unlike the geography of the region, Ecuador's political history also has a rugged and volatile character. Ecuador is currently operating under its 20th constitution since 1830 when Ecuador became a sovereign republic. In recent times, the presidency changed hands 6 times within one 10-year span, 1996 to 2006. Ecuador is currently home to almost 16 million people with representation from more than 30 different ethnic groups. Mestizos comprise the largest subgroup, accounting for approximately 65% of the population.

Ecuador faces major public health and socio-economic challenges. In recent years, widespread poverty, coupled with wealth inequality, have been compounded by plummeting oil prices on the global market. Although the current twice-elected administration has prioritized social investment, Ecuador's health system and social services remain fragmented. 3,4 Non-communicable diseases are increasing in incidence and prevalence. The arrival of the Zika virus epidemic has increased the disease burden and redirected resources away from the routine delivery of public health services for vulnerable citizens and communities. Zika infection and illness are occurring at high rates in the earthquake-affected areas, 5-7 Understandably, these interlocking elements of Ecuador's socio-economic, cultural, and political context hampered the nation's capacity to respond in the aftermath of the 2016 earthquake.

Desk review as a tool to inform humanitarian response

As a traumatic, sudden-onset disaster event, an earthquake of this magnitude, occurring in proximity to human populations, demands a rapid, strategic, and informed response to save lives, optimize health, and stabilize the affected region. Internationally, mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services have been increasingly recognized as an integral component of disaster response. However, the nation of Ecuador faced several fundamental challenges to implementing an MHPSS response. Baseline prevalence data for common mental disorders (CMDs) and substance abuse disorders were lacking. The availability of mental health treatment services, facilities, and professionals in the earthquake-impacted region was minimal. Moreover, there was very limited knowledge regarding culturally-acceptable and effective MHPSS and psychiatric interventions and resources.

Desk review is a method developed and recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to rapidly synthesize existing literature, both peer-reviewed and unpublished, on the socio-cultural context, mental health and psychosocial consequences experienced during past disaster events, the mental health system, historical experiences with humanitarian response, and information about the current situation for the disaster-affected nation or region. 8

The purpose for conducting a desk review is to consolidate existing knowledge on MHPSS within the culture and context of the disaster from a variety of sources such that it may serve as an accessible tool for humanitarian actors to use when making programmatic decisions. 8 This analytical exercise also reduces the need for deployable assets—emergency and MHPSS response personnel—to invest time and focus on conducting needs assessments and acquiring information that may already be available.

Research teams from 4 academic institutions, 1) King's College London, 2) University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 3) Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and 4) Universidad Complutense de Madrid, were assembled to produce the 2016 Ecuador earthquake desk review. 9,10 These research teams were comprised primarily of graduate students specializing in the areas of global mental health, public health, clinical psychology, and medicine. Approximately 30 students participated in the process, guided by leaders in each institution with expertise in the areas of disaster health and MHPSS and/or experience conducting an MHPSS desk review for other complex emergencies. In turn, prior to initiating the process, the desk review leaders consulted with the professionals who had spearheaded the development of the WHO and UNHCR assessment toolkit to clarify procedures and receive their recommendations. For example, one critical piece of guidance was that the 2016 Ecuador earthquake was considered by WHO to be a “category 2” disaster, and the health response was coordinated by WHO's Western Hemisphere affiliate, PAHO, not by the WHO Headquarters office in Geneva.

Also critical was the process of contacting PAHO and IASC's Reference Group for MHPSS. These entities were coordinating the humanitarian response and it was essential to receive permission and encouragement to proceed with the desk review.

The Ecuador desk review followed the structure outlined in the WHO assessment toolkit document. 8 Once a plan of action for the desk review was developed, the process became primarily student-led and operated. As has been found in previous reviews employing this personnel structure, 11 having large, well-organized and managed student volunteer groups allows for desk reviews to be conducted economically, without overburdening the time and resources of any individual participant. Regular communication and systematic coordination among the four participating institutions was critical for efficient development of this desk review. Another strength of our research teams was that several Ecuadorians and individuals intimately familiar with the local culture and context were represented. The close connection to Ecuador engendered a strong commitment and enthusiasm surrounding the desk review. The desk review created an opportunity for expatriate Ecuadorians—students and faculty members—to contribute instrumentally to the MHPSS response.

As outlined in the WHO assessment toolkit, the desk review began with searches of 5 academic databases focusing on peer-reviewed literature (LILACS, PILOTS, PsycINFO, Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science) and 15 agency websites and databases [ACAPS, ACT Alliance, ALNAP, CBM International, Gestion de Riesgos, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), International Organization for Migration (IOM), MHPSS.net, Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), Plan International, Relief Web, Save the Children, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), WHO, and World Vision International (WVI)].

The search strategy varied according to the functionality of each database's search engine. Search terms included “Ecuador,” “Equador,” “health,” “salud,” “psychosocial,” “psych*,” “psico*,” “protec*,” “mental,” and “mental health.” In addition to these data collection methods, we also elected to contact MHPSS experts in Ecuador and humanitarian response organizations known to be active in the response to request additional resources for inclusion in the desk review that may not have been available through one of the aforementioned databases. We liaised with PAHO and the IASC's Reference Group for MHPSS to identify and communicate with the agencies responding to the earthquake in Ecuador.

We prioritized personal communication for several reasons: 1) the 2016 Ecuador earthquake was classified as a category 2 disaster that was largely managed at the regional level; 2) we anticipated that the available literature on mental health and psychosocial well-being in Ecuador would be limited; and 3) we wanted to engage the end-users (i.e. humanitarian responders) in the desk review process early to optimize the utility of the final product.

Searches of all databases, including resources obtained from personal communications, yielded 1,483 documents, of which 195 were determined to be highly relevant. These articles were then reviewed in full and summarized by a member of the research team. The structure of the desk review adhered to the recommended table of contents provided in the desk review toolkit. 8 Once completed, the desk review was translated into Spanish. Both versions (English and Spanish) were sent to humanitarian actors working in Ecuador and published online for broader dissemination on 1) mhpss.net ( http://mhpss.net/groups/current-mhpss-emergency-responses/emergenciescrisis-briefs/mhpss-desk-review-reports/resources/ ) and 2) the Mental Health Innovation Network ( http://www.mhinnovation.net/resources/desk-review-ecuador-earthquake-revisi%C3%B3n-de-informaci%C3%B3n-terremoto-de-ecuador-2016 ).

This is one of the first desk reviews to provide a rapid translation into the language of the target population for ease of use by humanitarian responders.

Below we highlight a few of the primary findings from the desk review on MHPSS in the context of the 2016 Ecuador earthquake and discuss their relevance for humanitarian response.

Mental health and psychosocial problems and resources

The epidemiology of mental health and psychosocial problems in ecuador.

The desk review revealed a dearth of published research on mental health effects of disasters in Ecuador apart from the work of one research team dating from the 1990s that described post-traumatic stress and depressive symptoms in natural disaster survivors. 12 This finding was consistent with a 2013 WHO report highlighting the elevated risks for mental health problems in Latin America and the Caribbean in the aftermath of natural disasters. 13 Fortunately, a PAHO-commissioned study that provides a comprehensive update on the mental health system and services in Ecuador, with a strong focus on the cultural context, is due to be published in 2016.

Cultural conceptions of mental health and psychosocial wellbeing in Ecuador

Examination of relevant constructs such as idioms of distress, concepts of the self, and etiological theories, yielded useful information for addressing MHPSS needs following the earthquake. In Ecuador, the concept of the person tends to be holistic, viewing the individual as a composite of physical, mental, spiritual, and community identities. This notion of the self is particularly prevalent within indigenous communities where mental health problems are believed to result from supernatural causes. When these problems arise, traditional healers ( yachactaitas ) are consulted. 14-19 In contrast, Mestizos, the predominant ethnic group, employ a mixed explanatory model of mental disorders that incorporates elements from both biomedical and supernatural etiological theories. Therefore, Mestizos are more likely to be amenable to receiving western psychiatric and psychological interventions, although not exclusively.

The literature review indicated that prevalent psychological distress in the Ecuadorian population is related to unmet basic needs and the stressors of daily living. Natural disasters exacerbate this distress based on trauma exposures and resource losses for the affected populations.

The clinical presentation of mental health problems and the description of psychological symptoms differ across communities within Ecuador. Expressions that are used by members of indigenous Ecuadorian communities to describe mental health conditions and manifestations do not translate easily into the western psychiatric lexicon or diagnostic systems. In Ecuador, mental health problems frequently present as some form of somatization, particularly featuring gastrointestinal distress and headaches.

Idioms of distress differ by indigenous culture. Nervios is the expression that most closely approximates the western concept of psychological distress. Nervios is a term that refers to a constellation of symptoms that partially overlap with criteria used for diagnosing major depression. Nervios is distinguished from other idioms of distress as describing a normative and non-stigmatizing response to daily stressors. 19 The Mestizo population maintains an affinity for describing psychological distress using local idioms ( nervios, susto ) while also adopting the western nomenclature for psychiatric disorders and syndromes ( Table 1 ).

Idioms of distress. 14,17,19

The formal and informal health systems

Ecuador's constitution declares that free health care is a basic right for all citizens but this is not the reality. Mental health care in Ecuador has historically featured inpatient psychiatric care rather than community-based programs. 13 Recent initiatives have attempted a shift toward deinstitutionalization and expansion of public and private mental health services. Although the National Mental Health Strategic Plan 2014–2017 presents comprehensive guidelines for mental health care, no mechanism exists to translate this guidance into actual delivery of care. A severe limitation is the nationwide shortage of trained mental health professionals that persists despite recent efforts from the Ministry of Public Health to employ more specialized practitioners.

Barriers to accessing the formal mental health system are also introduced through cultural norms and help-seeking patterns. Help seeking often first occurs through the non-allopathic health system in Ecuador. The use of herbal and home remedies is common. 20 Furthermore, there are many non-allopathic health facilities and providers that operate in parallel to western medical facilities. 21,22 This is particularly true for indigenous communities whose members commonly seek care through traditional healers ( yachactaitas ). 15,17

This desk review resource was made available to humanitarian personnel to better inform them about the pluralistic nature of Ecuador's mental health care. Hopefully this information may have assisted humanitarian actors to integrate these systems of care into their acute disaster response operations. More importantly, throughout the prolonged recovery and reconstruction phases when earthquake-related distress and psychopathology are more likely to be observed, this information may also support the development of sustainable linkages for ongoing care.

The role of the education and social sectors in MHPSS

Few services exist outside of the traditional and non-allopathic health systems for prevention and treatment of mental health and psychosocial problems. In the aftermath of previous natural disasters in Ecuador, humanitarian agencies have introduced psychosocial programs into schools and social services that address the root causes of distress, such as loss of livelihoods and safety and security concerns. However, historically, the lifespan of these programs has only extended for the duration of the humanitarian response. 23-26

Earthquake response

The number of staff responding to MHPSS during the 2016 earthquake was difficult to estimate due to the chaotic nature of the situation. PAHO and the IASC monitored the agencies that were active in the MHPSS response ( Table 2 ). Preliminary reports found that the lack of specialized and non-specialized personnel resulted in unmet mental health needs. Moreover, there was no available evidence indicating that a mid to long-term recovery strategy, incorporating MHPSS, was being pursued.

Agencies and organizations providing mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) during the 2016 Ecuador earthquake.

Lessons learned and future directions

The findings from this desk review highlight important cultural considerations related to mental health that may inform humanitarian MHPSS programming, including how established formal and informal sources of mental health care are structured, the presence and manifestations of culture-bound syndromes and explanatory models, and differences in the experience and perception of mental health and psychosocial problems for distinct socio-demographic groups within Ecuador.

Limitations of the desk review

Several important limitations of the desk review should be noted. Although a desk review is intended to be broad and inclusive, it is not systematic and thus may not comprehensively describe the MHPSS literature. Moreover, literature on MHPSS in Ecuador was very limited. Furthermore, the existing literature focuses primarily on certain subgroups and is thus not representative of all of the Ecuadorians residing in the earthquake-affected zones. For example, scant literature was available on Afro-Ecuadorians and it is unclear whether the findings from this desk review are generalizable to this population or to other communities not represented in literature identified through our searches. Future research should focus on MHPSS in underrepresented Ecuadorian populations in order to strengthen our understanding of the epidemiology and treatment of mental health and psychosocial problems in Ecuador that will enhance the cultural competency of MHPSS response.

Distinguishing features and contributions of the desk review

This review is the first to summarize MHPSS in Ecuador during an ongoing disaster response. The desk review integrates knowledge on culture and context, the epidemiology and etiological theories of mental health and psychosocial problems, existing services and help-seeking patterns, and both historical and recent experiences with humanitarian response in Ecuador. This review incorporates data from multiple sources, specifically the peer-reviewed literature, agency websites and reports, and personal communication with people engaged in the earthquake response.

This desk review also presents several innovations that should be highlighted. First, following the example of previous desk reviews, this process employed a well-coordinated team of approximately 30 students across multiple institutions, which allowed for manageable distribution of workload as well as a timely turnaround. However, in contrast to previous desk reviews, this particular exercise was almost entirely student-driven, with minimal direct faculty or expert involvement. Only one faculty member at University of Miami and one at Universidad Complutense de Madrid had direct coordination roles and they shared these roles in an egalitarian manner with student leads at King's College London and Johns Hopkins. For future desk reviews, particularly those initiated for “category 2” level disasters (that will garner less international focus and personnel resources), it may be possible to rely on student involvement (particularly students from institutions with connections to the disaster-affected region) in a similar manner.

Second, the act of incorporating Ecuadorian students as project volunteers for the desk review benefitted from their special connection to the country and motivation for participation. Their involvement provided an additional assurance that the material that was summarized in the review was relevant, comprehensive, accurate, and culturally attuned.

Third, in addition to relying on the traditional search databases as primary sources of relevant literature—and motivated by the dearth of available literature specific to Ecuador—the desk review team decided to reach out to the humanitarian response agencies actively working in the field to expand the array and timeliness of disaster-relevant resources incorporated into the review.

Fourth, the decision to translate the desk review into the primary language of the disaster-affected nation (e.g. Spanish for Ecuador) broadened the audience of potential end-users and improved the utility of the final product. Translation allowed Spanish-speaking stakeholders to directly access and use this material. In this desk review, the primary focus of the team at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid was to accomplish this task in a timely manner (the team completed the translation in 3–4 weeks).

Concluding comments

As one of the key assessment tools for MHPSS response in emergency settings, the act of conducting a rapid desk review “packages” critical, extant information and resources for timely application by decision-makers who are coordinating the operations, and onsite personnel who are actively engaged in disaster response and recovery.

The innovations discussed in this commentary may further improve the development, dissemination, and uptake of future desk reviews as well as provide a foundation for updates in the event of future disasters in Ecuador. The results of the desk review highlight the complexities involved in developing MHPSS programs that are grounded on the best evidence-based science, concordant with explanatory models, and carefully adapted to the diversity of cultures represented among the disaster-affected populations. Also challenging is the ability to prioritize MHPSS and to dovetail psychosocial interventions effectively into pluralistic health systems.

Importantly, this desk review revealed the lack of research on MHPSS in this region. In Ecuador, as well as many other nations affected by humanitarian emergencies, there is a great need for additional research on MHPSS, 27 particularly in ethnic minorities and populations seeking mental health services outside of the formal health system. Desk reviews provide an opportunity, not only for informing the humanitarian response to the urgencies of the immediate emergency, but also for elucidating important systemic gaps in mental health knowledge, services, and staffing.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Acknowledgments

We thank the following persons for contributing to data collection, screening and synthesis for the desk review: Natalie Ann Cain, James Patrick Ennen, Yanira E. Garcia-Barcena, Matthew Scott Heller, Katherine Masih, Rachel McKean, Zsuzsanna Nemeth, Daniel Martin O'Shea, Denisse Cristina Pareja V., Carlos Mario Parra, and Nelson Sanchez (University of Miami Miller School of Medicine); Farnoosh Ali, Victor Cabezas, Alvaro Chiriboga, Melissa Co, Lakshmi Gopalakrishnan, J. Esteban Guzman, Sarah Hartman, Valentina Lucio Paredes, Sarah Oeffler, Mateo Saenz, Zainab Sulaiman, and Andrea Yandun (King's College London & London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine); and Daniel Hostetler (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health). We also thank affiliates of Universidad Complutense de Madrid for assistance in translating the desk review into Spanish: Pedro Altungy Labrador, Rocio Fausor de Castro, Maria Paz Garcia Vera, Noelia Moran Rodriguez, and Ana Silvia Salazar Zetina.

We would also like to thank Drs. Ricardo Araya, Mark Jordans, Brandon Kohrt, Wietse Tol and Mark van Ommeren for their guidance related to desk review procedures.

Funding sources

Ms. Greene is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) under grant T32DA007292. Ms. Troya is supported by the Keele University ACORN studentship, and was also supported by SENESCYT Ecuador Becas de Excelencia 2015 under grant No. 063-CIBAE-2015 during the 2015–2016 academic period.

Just one more step to your free trial.

.surveysparrow.com

Already using SurveySparrow?  Login

By clicking on "Get Started", I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Enterprise Survey Software

Enterprise Survey Software to thrive in your business ecosystem

NPS® Software

Turn customers into promoters

Offline Survey

Real-time data collection, on the move. Go internet-independent.

360 Assessment

Conduct omnidirectional employee assessments. Increase productivity, grow together.

Reputation Management

Turn your existing customers into raving promoters by monitoring online reviews.

Ticket Management

Build loyalty and advocacy by delivering personalized support experiences that matter.

Chatbot for Website

Collect feedback smartly from your website visitors with the engaging Chatbot for website.

Swift, easy, secure. Scalable for your organization.

Executive Dashboard

Customer journey map, craft beautiful surveys, share surveys, gain rich insights, recurring surveys, white label surveys, embedded surveys, conversational forms, mobile-first surveys, audience management, smart surveys, video surveys, secure surveys, api, webhooks, integrations, survey themes, accept payments, custom workflows, all features, customer experience, employee experience, product experience, marketing experience, sales experience, hospitality & travel, market research, saas startup programs, wall of love, success stories, sparrowcast, nps® benchmarks, learning centre, apps & integrations, testimonials.

Our surveys come with superpowers ⚡

Blog General

Desk Research 101: Definition, Methods, and Examples

Parvathi vijayamohan.

Last Updated:  

30 May 2024

Table Of Contents

If you ever had to do a research study or a survey at some point, you would have started with desk research .

There’s another, more technical name for it – secondary research. To rewind a bit, there are two types of research: primary , where you go out and study things first-hand, and secondary , where you explore what others have done.

But what is desk research? How do you do it, and use it? This article will help you:

• Understand what is desk-based research
• Explore 3 examples of desk research
• Learn about 6 common desk research methods
• Uncover the advantages of desk research

What is desk research?

Desk research can be defined as a type of market/product research, where you collect data at your desk (metaphorically speaking) from existing sources to get initial ideas about your research topic.

Desk research or secondary research is an essential process from a business’s point of view. After all, secondary data sources are such an easy way to get information about their industry, trends, competitors, and customers.

Types of secondary data sources

#1. Internal secondary data: This consists of data from within the researcher’s company. Examples include:

• Company reports and presentations
• Case studies
• Podcasts, vlogs and blogs
• Press releases
• Websites and social media
• Company databases and data sets

#2. External secondary data: Researchers collect this from outside their respective firms. Examples include:

• Digital and print publications
• Domain-specific publications and periodicals
• Online research communities, like  ResearchGate
• Industry speeches and conference presentations
• Research papers

What are examples of desk research in action?

#1. testing product-audience match.

Let’s say you’re developing a fintech product. You want to do a concept testing study. To make sure you get it right, you’re interested in finding out your target audience’s attitudes about a topic in your domain. For e.g., Gen Z’s perceptions about money in the US.

With a quick Google search, you get news articles, reports, and research studies about Gen Z’s financial habits and attitudes. Also, infographics and videos provide plenty of quantitative data to draw on.

These steps are a solid starting point for framing your concept testing study. You can further reduce the time spent on survey design with a  Concept Testing Survey Template . Sign up to get free access to this and hundreds more templates.

Please enter a valid Email ID.

14-Day Free Trial • No Credit Card Required • No Strings Attached

#2. Tracking the evolution of the Web

As we wade into the brave new world of  Web 5.0 , there are quite a few of us who still remember static websites, flash animations, and images sliced up into tables.

If you want to refresh your memory, you can hop on the  Wayback Machine . iI gives you access to over 20 years of web history, with over 635 billion web pages saved over time!

Curiosity aside, there are practical use cases for this web archive. SEO specialist Artur Bowsza explores this in his fantastic article  Internet Archeology with the Wayback Machine .

Imagine you’re investigating a recent drop in a website’s visibility. You know there were some recent changes in the website’s code, but couldn’t get any details. Or maybe you’re preparing a case study of your recent successful project, but the website has changed so much, and you never bothered to take a screenshot. Wouldn’t it be great to travel back in time and uncover the long-forgotten versions of the website – like an archaeologist, discovering secrets from the past but working in the digital world?

#3. Repairing a business reputation

As a brand, you hope that a crisis never happens. But if hell does break loose, having a crisis management strategy is essential.

If you want examples, just do a Google search. From Gamestop getting caught in a  Reddit stock trading frenzy  to Facebook being voted  The Worst Company of 2021 , we have seen plenty of brands come under fire in recent years.

Some in-depth desk research can help you nail your crisis communication. Reputation management expert Lida Citroen outlines this in her article 7 Ways to Recover After a Reputation Crisis .

Conduct a thoughtful and thorough perception sweep of the reputation hit’s after-effects. This includes assessing digital impact such as social media, online relationships and Google search results. The evaluation gives you a baseline. How serious is the situation? Sometimes the way we believe the situation to be is not reflected in the business impact of the damage.

6 popular methods of desk research

#1. the internet.

No surprise there. When was the last time you checked a book to answer the burning question of “is pineapple on pizza illegal?” (it should be).

However, choosing authentic and credible sources from an information overload can be tricky. To help you out, the Lydia M. Olson Library has a 6-point checklist to filter out low-quality sources. You can read them in detail here .

#2. Libraries

You have earned some serious street cred if your preferred source is a library. But, jokes apart, finding the correct information for your research topic in a library can be time-consuming.

However, depending on which library you visit, you will find a wealth of verifiable, quotable information in the form of newspapers, magazines, research journals, books, documents, and more.

#3. Governmental and non-governmental organizations

NGOs, and governmental agencies like the US Census Bureau, have valuable demographic data that businesses can use during desk research. This data is collected using survey tools like SurveySparrow .

You may have to pay a certain fee to download or access the information from these agencies. However, the data obtained will be reliable and trustworthy.

#4. Educational institutions

Colleges and universities conduct plenty of primary research studies every year. This makes them a treasure trove for desk researchers.

However, getting access to this data requires legwork. The procedures vary according to the institution; among other things, you will need to submit an application to the relevant authority and abide by a data use agreement.

#5. Company databases

For businesses, customer and employee data are focus areas all on their own. But after the pandemic, companies are using even more applications and tools for the operations and service sides.

This gives businesses access to vast amounts of information useful for desk research and beyond. For example, one interesting  use case  is making employee onboarding more effective with just basic employee data, like their hobbies or skills.

#6. Commercial information media

These include radio, newspapers, podcasts, YouTube, and TV stations. They are decent sources of first-hand info on political and economic developments, market research, public opinion and other trending subjects.

However, this is also a source that blurs the lines between advertising, information and entertainment. So as far as credibility is concerned, you are better off supporting this data with additional sources.

Why is desk research helpful?

Desk research helps with the following:

• Better domain understanding.  Before doing market research, running a usability test, or starting any user-centric project, you want to see what companies have done in the past (in related areas if not the same domain). Then, instead of learning everything from scratch, you can review their research, success, and mistakes and learn from that. 
• Quicker opportunity spotting.  How do you know if you’ve found something new? By reviewing what has gone before. By doing this, you can spot gaps in the data that match up with the problem you’re trying to solve.
• More money saved . Thanks to the internet, most of the data you need is at your fingertips, and they are cheaper to compile than field data. With a few (search and mental) filters, you can quickly find credible sources with factual information.
• More time saved . You have less than 15 minutes with your research participant. Two minutes if you’re doing an online survey. Do you really want to waste that time asking questions that have already been answered elsewhere? Lack of preparation can also hurt your credibility.
• Better context.  Desk research helps to provide focus and a framework for primary research. By using desk research, companies can also get the insight to make better decisions about their customers and employees.
• More meaningful data.  Desk research is the yin to the yang of field research – they are both required for a meaningful study. That’s why desk research serves as a starting point for every kind of study.

This brings us to the last question.

How do you do desk research?

Good question! In her blog post , Lorène Fauvelle covers the desk research process in detail.

Y ou can also follow our 4-step guide below:

• First,  start with a general topic l ike “handmade organic soaps”. Read through existing literature about handmade soaps to see if there is a gap in the literature that your study can fill.
• Once you find that gap, it’s time to  specify your research topic . So in the example above, you can specify it like this: “What is the global market size for handmade organic soaps”?
• Identify the relevant secondary data for desk research. This only applies if there is past data that could be useful for your research.
• Review the secondary data  according to:
• The aim of the previous study
• The author/sponsors of the study
• The methodology of the study
• The time of the research

Note: One more thing about desk research…

Beware of dismissing research just because it was done a few years ago. People new to research often make the mistake of viewing research reports like so many yogurts in a fridge where the sell-by dates have expired. Just because it was done a couple of years ago, don’t think it’s no longer relevant. The best research tends to focus on human behaviour, and that tends to change very slowly.

• Dr David Travis, Desk Research: The What, Why and How

Wrapping up

That’s all folks! We hope this blog was helpful for you.

How have you used desk research for your work? Let us know in the comments below.

Growth Marketer at SurveySparrow

Fledgling growth marketer. Cloud watcher. Aunty to a naughty beagle.

You Might Also Like

11 best customer service software of 2024, how to stay safe from covid-19: symptoms & precautions, survey design: a 10-step guide with examples, see it to believe it..

14-Day Free Trial  •  Cancel Anytime  •  No Credit Card Required  •   Need a Demo?

Start your free trial today

No Credit Card Required. 14-Day Free Trial

Request a Demo

Want to learn more about SurveySparrow? We'll be in touch soon!

Power your desktop research with stunning surveys

Don't rely on the past alone. get insights into the future with powerful feedback software. try surveysparrow for free..

14-Day Free Trial • No Credit card required • 40% more completion rate

Hi there, we use cookies to offer you a better browsing experience and to analyze site traffic. By continuing to use our website, you consent to the use of these cookies. Learn More

• UX consultancy
• UX training

Desk research: the what, why and how

The “where” (at your desk) and the “when” (at the beginning of your project) are easy questions to answer. But what is it, why do you need to to do it, and how should you go about doing desk research to make sure it adds value to your project? —  David Travis , Jan 4, 2016

By David Travis Jan 4, 2016 / strategy

Comment, share or save this article

(opens a new browser window)

What is desk research?

Desk research is another name for secondary research. Broadly speaking, there are two types of research activity: primary research (where you go out and discover stuff yourself); and secondary research (where you review what other people have done). Desk research is not about collecting data. Instead, your role as a user researcher carrying out desk research is to review previous research findings to gain a broad understanding of the field.

Why do desk research?

Before carrying out a field visit, developing a prototype, running a usability test, or embarking on any project that you want to be user centred, it makes sense to see what people have done in the past that relates to the product’s domain. Although it’s unlikely that anyone has carried out the exact research activity you’re planning, someone has almost certainly tried to answer related questions. Reviewing this research is the quickest and cheapest way to understand the domain.

Carrying out desk research is a critical first step, for at least three reasons:

• If you don’t know what has gone before, you won’t know when you’ve discovered something new.
• You’ll sound credible when you get face-to-face with users and stakeholders. If you’ve not done this “due diligence”, you’ll ask dumb or irrelevant questions and may find your participants cut your sessions short.
• Failing to do preparatory research is disrespectful of your participants’ time. You may get less than an hour with a user of your system. Do you really want to waste half that time understanding the domain issues that you could have covered elsewhere?

How do you approach desk research?

At this point, I’ve had many user researchers tell me that they’re working on a bleeding edge design project so there isn’t any desk research to do. There’s a common misconception that no research exists.

In my experience, there is almost always something you can build upon. Here’s an approach I take to go about finding it. It helps me stay focussed but also makes sure that I remember to check all the possible nooks and crannies where relevant research findings may be hiding.

A Venn diagram showing users, goals and environments. Where these three overlap is the sweet spot for user research.

The Venn diagram describes the context of use: your users, their goals and the environments where the action occurs. The best kind of research is where all three of these dimensions overlap: field visits that focus on your users trying to achieve their goals in context. This kind of research is so specific and relevant to your project that it may be hard to find, so don’t get discouraged if you can’t turn anything up in this area.

This set of Venn diagrams shows that research into the overlap between users and goals, environments and goals and users and envrionments can also yield useful insights.

But there is potentially useful research in the other areas of overlap on our Venn diagram. This falls into three broad areas:

• Research about your users and their goals, but that was not carried out in context. This kind of research will take the form of surveys, customer interviews and focus groups.
• Research that addresses the goals your system will support and the environment it will be used in, but doesn’t tell us much about users. Examples include call centre or web analytics.
• Research that uncovers information about your users in their environment, but that may not address the goals that your system will support. This will take the form of field research by teams who are designing a product for the same kinds of user but to meet different needs.

The most likely place you’ll find this kind of research is within your own organisation. But you need to be prepared to dig. This is because research findings, especially on agile projects, are often treated as throw-away by-products that apply to a specific project. The findings aren’t shared outside the design team but typically make a fleeting appearance on a research wall or end up buried in someone’s email inbox. Even when research findings are written down, and even when the report is archived somewhere, people typically don’t know how to go about finding it. Organisations are generally poor at creating a shared repository of knowledge and rarely teach staff how to use the intranet or where past reports might be located. The result of these obstacles is that companies waste time and money either doing research that already exists or asking the wrong research questions.

So within your organisation, you should:

• Talk to your stakeholders. Get to know the product owner and understand their goals, vision and concerns.
• Examine call centre analytics or web analytics (if there is an existing service).
• Talk to front line, customer facing people who currently interact with users.

In almost every project, you'll find some research that exists into users, goals and environments. This may not be directly relevant to your specific research questions but it will help you become knowledgeable about the domain.

Once you’ve covered the areas of overlap, your next step is to look for more generic information about your users, the environment in which they’ll use the system, and the kinds of goals your system will support.

• What research has been done with your users, even if it’s not directly relevant to their goals when using your system?
• What research has been done on the kind of goals your system will support, even if the research has been done with a different user group?
• What research exists on the kinds of environment where you expect your system to be used (environment means hardware, software and the physical and social environments in which your system will be used).

In this step, you’ll find it useful to:

• Review existing research done by Government organisations.'In the UK, the Office for National Statistics has a wealth of information about citizens that may be useful to understand your users, such as demographics about Internet users , consumer trends and facts about online retail sales in the UK
• Review research carried out by relevant charities. For example, if you’re developing a new kind of tool to help diabetics measure their sugar levels, you should bookmark the research done by Diabetes UK . Web sites like Charity Choice allow you to browse through and locate hundreds of different charitable organisations so you’re bound to find at least one that’s relevant.
• Search Google Scholar to find relevant research carried out by universities. Although you may struggle to appreciate the nuances of certain academic arguments, you could always use this route to find the researcher’s contact details and give them a call.
• If your system will be used in a work context, study interviews at careers web sites. For example, The Guardian's careers section has interviews with people working as tattoo artists , forensic scientists , and as a royal footman so the chances are that you'll be able to get some context for whatever job title your system is aimed at. You should also check the Guardian's " What I'm Really Thinking " series.

Judging the quality of the research you find

Judging the quality of research is a whole article in itself. Fortunately, Philip Hodgson’s guidelines for reviewing consumer research reports has it covered.

There’s just one thing I’d add to Philip’s guidelines. Beware of dismissing research just because it was done a few years ago. People new to research often make the mistake of viewing research reports like so many yogurts in a fridge where the sell-by dates have expired. Just because it was done a couple of years ago, don’t think it’s no longer relevant. The best research tends to focus on human behaviour, and that tends to change very slowly.

Interested in this topic?

Find out more on our 3-day, user experience immersion seminar .

About the author

Dr. David Travis ( @userfocus ) has been carrying out ethnographic field research and running product usability tests since 1989. He has published three books on user experience including Think Like a UX Researcher . If you like his articles, you might enjoy his free online user experience course .

If you liked this, try…

• Guidelines for reviewing consumer research reports
• Is Consumer Research Losing Its Focus?
• What user researchers can learn from Sherlock Holmes
• You have 19 days to define your research problem
• Usability Test Data

Foundation Certificate in UX

Gain hands-on practice in all the key areas of UX while you prepare for the BCS Foundation Certificate in User Experience. More details

Download the best of Userfocus. For free.

100s of pages of practical advice on user experience, in handy portable form. 'Bright Ideas' eBooks .

Related articles & resources

This article is tagged strategy .

User Experience Articles & Videos

Our most recent videos

• Jul 3: User research when social distancing
• Jun 19: How to create bulletproof survey questions
• Jun 12: Can you re-use usability test participants?
• Jun 5: Why you don't need user representatives
• May 29: Should a design agency test its own design?

Our most recent articles

• Dec 2: Usability task scenarios: The beating heart of a usability test
• Nov 4: Common traps in user needs research and how to avoid them
• Oct 7: Transitioning from academic research to UX research
• Sep 2: The minimalist field researcher: What's in my bag?
• Aug 5: The future of UX research is automated, and that's a problem

See all videos

Filter articles by keyword

• accessibility  •
• axure  •
• benefits  •
• careers  •
• case study  •
• css  •
• discount usability  •
• ecommerce  •
• ethnography  •
• expert review  •
• fitts law  •
• focus groups  •
• forms  •
• guidelines  •
• heuristic evaluation  •
• ia  •
• iso 9241  •
• iterative design  •
• layout  •
• legal  •
• metrics  •
• mobile  •
• moderating  •
• morae  •
• navigation  •
• personas  •
• prototyping  •
• questionnaires  •
• quotations  •
• roi  •
• selling usability  •
• standards  •
• strategy  •
• style guide  •
• survey design  •
• task scenarios  •
• templates  •
• tools  •
• usability testing  •
• user manual

Our services

Let us help you create great customer experiences.

• User experience research
• User experience design
• User experience training

Upcoming courses

We run regular training courses in usability and UX.

UX Certification

• Online User Experience training
• Arrange in-house training

Training courses

Join our community of UX professionals who get their user experience training from Userfocus. See our curriculum .

• Privacy policy

copyright © Userfocus 2021. The Usability Training Centre is a trading name of Userfocus limited.

Get help with…

Get hands-on practice in all the key areas of UX and prepare for the BCS Foundation Certificate.

In-House Usability Training Courses

We can tailor our user research and design courses to address the specific issues facing your development team.

User Experience Consultancy

Users don't always know what they want and their opinions can be unreliable — so we help you get behind your users' behaviour.

Systematic approach to desk-top research and university projects

• Post author By admin
• Post date September 22, 2014
• No Comments on Systematic approach to desk-top research and university projects

How to conduct effective desk-top research?

This article is for any university student about to embark on writing essays or completing dissertations and projects for the first time. I have also run workshops introducing these methods and they do seem to be overwhelmingly useful even to more experienced researchers. This article is also intended to help  dissertation supervisors who may want to produce a ‘mini-systematic review’ for an undergraduate or postgraduate research project. This provides a robust methodology for the students to follow and is a much more rewarding and exacting project than a mere literature review. It will also satisfy requirements of those professional bodies who look for an element of ‘data analysis’ within the project.

So, let us embark on an interesting and hopefully informative journey about how to carry out effective desk-top research.

Introducing the systematic review

The word “ systematic ” in relation to a review involves the use of precise methods to gather and assess the results of research publications that (most importantly) minimises bias within the process. The result should be a robust and reliable assimilation of evidence in order to reach a reliable conclusion. Medical systematic reviews are conducted and published through the Cochrane Library  named after Archie Cochrane a Scottish doctor who established the idea of evidence-based medicine. Why do I mention systematic reviews in relation to desk-top research? Well – if you understand the premise and approaches of a systematic review and apply them to your essays, coursework and dissertations, then you will be undertaking a high quality piece of work (or suggesting a high quality assignment if you are setting the work). The steps highlighted below would also provide you with a methodology and the basis of a methods section for a dissertation.

Figure 1 illustrates the systematic approach.  The details on the left hand side are the minimum approach that could be undertaken in an essay or piece of desk-top research. For more in-depth undergraduate projects, and certainly for full systematic reviews, the details on the right hand side would need to be fully understood and reported.

Full systematic reviews can be conducted on any subject, not just medical ones. I have written  ones on education subjects – and here too, they are useful to  pool knowledge about best practice, or to evaluate new innovations in teaching for example. In education, often the methods are more relaxed as generally education papers do not meet the high quality standards of medical papers and their research designs. This is often due to not being able to randomise groups of students / learners due to the constraints of timetabling and classrooms. This isn’t the entire story though, as generally there is a feeling that much medical research and education research is simply not conducted as well as it could be .

Systematic principles – we should all use them!

A full systematic review is a serious piece of research and I like to teach the principles to my university students wherever possible because it provides them with a basis for doing high quality literature reviews, essays and dissertations. In fact I believe that anyone conducting research should know these principles. How many times do we hear that people are just using a Google Search or even Scholar, and they think it is research? The mainstay for any professional research must be the use of peer-reviewed and edited articles, and Scholar will not provide a robust enough search of these, and will also retrieve non-peer-reviewed reports and documents. Interesting as background reading certainly, but not for citation within a professional piece of work.

1) Setting the research question

The formulation of a precise research question is the starting point for any research and can be quite tricky. In medicine the  PICO framework  is used to define the various elements – population, intervention, comparison and outcome measure. For example I might be interested whether probiotics help people with diarrhoea.

Population – patients with diarrhoea Intervention – probiotics Comparison – no treatment Outcome – alleviation of diarrhoeal symptoms

So a question might be,

In patients with diarrhoea, do probiotics compared to no treatment, alleviate symptoms?

A PICO based question is the starting point of any dissertation student of mine, although not all the categories may apply. Once the question is set, the search strategy evolves and we can start generating keywords around the question categories.

But let’s take an education example. I’m interested in free online learning in the form of massive online open courses – MOOCs and the student experience.

P = learners I = MOOCs C = face to face/ traditional learning O = student experience

The question might be,

Do MOOCs enhance the experience of learners compared to traditional methods?

2) Deciding where to search?

A systematic review will aim to find ALL the articles in the world! This means not just using electronic databases, but hand searching books and journals, and contacting experts for unpublished or ongoing research. This can be quite a time intensive process. Today, the process is greatly helped by being able to save your searches within electronic databases, so once established (e.g. you might run a search at the start of your student project), you can simply run it again at the end to check for recent articles. Be pragmatic with the time you have – you might not be able to search everywhere, and the school of thought is that actually a good search of electronic databases will retrieve you the majority of articles these days, although do take care if you are particularly interested in more historic ones that may not be digitised.

So, where you decide to search will depend on what your organisation or local library has access to. Web of Knowledge and Medline are the mainstays of my research – which is both medical and educational. For my review on MOOCs I also used SCOPUS, IEEE and others. These cover both conference proceedings and workshop proceedings alongside published articles (original research, literature reviews, comments, opinions, letters etc).

3) Building up keyword lists for searching

From our PICO categories, we can start building up lists of keywords on similar themes.

P = learners, students, users I = MOOCs, xMOOC, cMOOC, massive online open course, free course C = face to face teaching, traditional teaching O = student experience, learning gain, knowledge gain

The next step is building up these words further. This is where I recommend using Wikipedia . It is a great keyword generator. I will also run some searches at this point to find relevant studies and look at their keywords to add to the list. If you were carrying out a full systematic review to publish, you would spend some time building up your keywords and then testing the results to ensure you were retrieving relevant articles. This iterative process might go on for some time, although for shorter-time scale projects such as undergraduate work, this may not be desirable.

4) Getting the keywords organised using Boolean logic

In some research I recently conducted looking at massive online open courses – MOOCs – I used six online databases to search, and used Boolean notation for searching with my keyword lists. There is a nice explanation of the use of Boolean logic on Ithaca College Library website. This in its simplest form uses the words (inputed in capitals – AND, OR, NOT) to combine keywords in order to expand and cross-reference your search accordingly. The Figure 2 summarises this approach.

You can also truncate words to search for all the variants of word endings using an asterisk *

e.g. MOOC MOOCs we can search for MOOC* e.g. Massive or massively we can search for massiv*

If searching phrases these need to be in quotations otherwise the individual words will be searched for separately and return thousands of results.

e.g. “massiv* online open cours*”

I’ve referred to the use of Boolean notation in another blog article – “ Seek and ye shall find ” complete with webcasts and instructions. This is following very simple principles and those expert in searching and forming Boolean instruction will be more complex than this. Here are some of the more commonly used ‘operators’ or instructions within the notation.

# means search OR – this will link together keywords and is used to broaden a search AND – this will cross-reference two searches (and not expand the search as you might suspect) NOT – this will exclude terms from the search

Going back to our question whether probiotics are effective for patients with diarrhoea, we could just haphazardly search for the keywords as shown below in Figure 3. However, as shown by the numbers, you will retrieve vast numbers of records and your search will not be specifically addressing your question.

The use of Boolean notation can be illustrated by the formation of a Venn diagram which shows the principles of combining the three separate searches using the word ‘AND’. The ‘OR’ term will enable you to expand out your searches such as for probiotics and lactobacillus. You may also search for humans and adults as a focus, and also the disease of interest. By using the ‘AND’ term you are cross-referencing the three searches to find those papers in the centre of the Venn diagram (Figure 4) – you can see a more manageable number of 1312 papers. These of course can be further limited perhaps by searching just for clinical trials.

5) Running the search and being organised!

Organisation is key and many online databases can set up accounts to save your searches (Medline is great for this) or export your outputs to a reference manager. I prefer to sometimes run the search, save the results as a ‘txt’ file and input into Microsoft Excel for analysis. The analysis steps might be important in a systematic review where you have pre-set what your research question is and your criteria for including studies. You can therefore use a new Excel sheet for each step in the analysis to maintain a good record of your process.

If you are completing a full systematic review, you will wish to refine your search in an iterative manner. That is, you will look at your search results to see if they are retrieving relevant articles, and refine the keywords and Boolean strategy if necessary to produce a more precise result. This step can in my experience take far more time than you might realise. The benefit is, once the search is right, you can save it and use it to update your coursework / project or review in the future.

6) What are study inclusion and exclusion criteria? (Could be optional depending on type of project or research)

For an undergraduate project you may not wish to be so stringent to think about what types of studies you wish to include or exclude. If you are completing a literature review, you may want just to provide an overall evaluation of everything that you have found. If you are being more systematic and wish to generate data for your project, you can follow the steps undertaken by a full systematic review, and record the numbers of studies you include and exclude at each phase. The beauty of this within a project or piece of research is that you are generating legitimate research data that can be displayed in a number of established figures and formats as illustrated below in Figure 5. Here, the results of a literature search and numbers of studies that are excluded during the process are shown.

Some excellent details on how to report systematic review results can be found not he following website, describing the PRISMA statements – preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses .

In my studies of ‘education’, I set the entry gate quite wide so not to restrict the numbers of studies based on their design and quality. You will need to decide your inclusion and exclusion criteria at the start when you are writing your research proposal, or planning your essay. If you did wish to consider excluding types of articles, you might for example be doing a medical review and may well wish to only include randomised controlled trials. You might be researching an area of biomedical science and wish only to include animal investigations. If you are interested in systematic reviews in education specifically, this is a subject of development and debate the present time (e.g. Bennett 2005).

When you are analysing the results of your searches you will often soon spot ‘duplicate studies’. You will almost certainly find the same study on a number of databases, so you can use the ‘sort’ function to scan your lists of authors and remove duplicates. Studies can be duplicated in more subtle ways, for example an author might publish an abstract of data in a national journal, and then present the data at international conference. These are strictly duplicate studies because they contain the same data. The duplicate will need to be removed as shown in Figure 5.

7) Data collection and analysis

If you are intending to follow a systematic approach you will need to construct a series of spreadsheets to gather and organise your results. If you are completing a full systematic review you will establish the layout of a data extraction table prior to starting the review. This would include items such as author name, date of publication, methodology, outcome measures, and a host of other details. Again, the Cochrane organisation has further details on  data extraction .

Sorting your search results and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria does take time, but ultimately it will give you the good results you are looking for. In a full-scale systematic review a number of authors would do these steps independently to ensure the process is accurate and to avoid bias introduced by personal choices and preferences. A third author can help discuss any areas of conflict or indecision. Filtering of the papers generally occurs in two phases:

Phase 1 of filtering. You can quickly filter your results often by just looking at the titles and author names to identify duplicates. You may need to review the abstracts at this point to ensure they match your inclusion criteria. Anything that is unclear will need to be checked by reviewing the full paper.

Phase 2 of selecting and filtering. If your inclusion criteria is looking for a specific methodology – e.g. randomised controlled trial, or specific subset of articles – e.g. animal studies, if you cannot glean this information from the abstract you will need the full paper to review.

So you might go through a phase of ordering full papers, and again use a reference manager of file system on your computer to organise yourself. I generally obtain the full paper for every article as I go along.

8) Qualitative versus quantitive analysis

For a full systematic review, if you have identified enough studies you can then extract data for pooling in a meta-analysis to provide quantitative data. As part of a review it is also good practice to provide a brief ‘narrative’ of the papers identified, and also to summarise your results in table form. The extent to which you do all of this will depend on the numbers of papers retrieved, and for the purposes of ‘containing’ an undergraduate project within 5000 words which is often the limit, you may need to restrict the textual explanations of the papers.

Providing the ‘narrative’ is often the part that students struggle to do within project result sections, therefore it is worth gaining a deeper understanding of the approaches and styles that can be undertaken. Popay et al in 2006 wrote a report on narrative synthesis that may be a starting point.

9) Finishing off and identifying themes and conclusions

If you have adhered to your question, keywords and inclusion / exclusion criteria, you should end up with a corpus (body of literature) directly relevant to your question. Depending on the volume of papers retrieved you may be able to look for sub-themes and organise your discussion around these. For example, searching for probiotics and diarrhoeal disease may reveal areas of research focusing on children as opposed to adults for example. The research may focus on different types of bacteria or blends of bacteria. A systematic approach is a great way of organising your research from start to finish!

Bennett, J., Fred Lubben , Sylvia Hogarth & Bob Campbell (2005). Systematic reviews of research in science education: rigour or rigidity?, International Journal of Science Education, 27:4, 387-406.

Cochrane Library (2014). About Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Protocols. Available:  http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/AboutCochraneSystematicReviews.html

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., … & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme. Version, 1.

• Tags research methods , Study skills , systematic review

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Desk Research

Desk research methodology is a method of collecting and analyzing information from available secondary sources, such as documents, reports, academic publications and other materials available online or in libraries. The purpose of desk research is to gain a broader perspective on the problem or issue under study, as well as to supplement or confirm knowledge on the topic. Desk research is particularly useful for research on historical events or processes and theoretical studies.

Application of Desk Research

Methods for implementing desk research include various ways to collect and analyze available market information without conducting face-to-face surveys with users. Here are some example methods: Analysis of available industry reports and publications: you can collect data from available industry reports and publications, such as market reports, industry analysis, scientific reports, etc. Analysis of statistical data: you can use available statistical data, such as demographic data, sales data, labor market data, etc. Review of websites and industry portals: you can collect data from various websites and industry portals, such as those of manufacturers, distributors, industry organizations, etc. Analysis of newspaper articles: you can analyze newspaper articles posted in newspapers, magazines and the Internet to gain information about the market and its trends. Internet search: you can search for market information using search engines such as Google to gain a wide range of available information. Social media data analysis: you can collect and analyze data from social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., to gain information about users’ opinions and preferences.

Methods of implementing Desk Research

The methods for carrying out desk research are as follows: Searching databases: Various databases, such as industry, statistical or scientific databases, can be used to find the information needed. Reviewing documents and reports: You can also review various types of documents and reports, such as financial reports, market statistics or industry reports, to obtain information on an issue of interest. Analyzing data from the Internet: You can also use various sources available on the Internet, such as websites, online forums and social media to find the information you need. Literature research: You can also conduct literature research, that is, you can analyze the available scientific literature and review articles from scientific journals or books in the field. Data analysis from other sources: You can also use data available from other sources, such as data files from government offices or institutions or data collected by other companies or organizations.

Our company Fieldstat specializes in Desk Research. We provide top-notch services and our teams are professionally qualified. We do market research, product quality research, competitive research, consumer research, social media research, technology research and much more. We have a wealth of tools and knowledge to meet our clients’ needs and deliver the best results. If you are looking for someone to help you gather and interpret information, please contact us.

Who commissions Desk Research?

Desk research is commissioned by various individuals or institutions that need information on a particular issue or market. Examples of people or institutions that may commission desk research: Companies: Many companies commission desk research to learn about the market situation, customer needs and preferences, competition or industry trends. Non-profit organizations: Non-profit organizations, such as foundations or associations, often commission desk research to obtain information on a particular field or social problem. Government institutions: Government institutions, such as ministries or offices, may also commission desk research to obtain information on various issues, such as to develop public policy. Individuals: Individuals can also commission desk research, such as if they want to learn about the market for services or products in order to make purchasing or investment decisions.

The path of cooperation

Let's talk about your project.

We value your time. Use the button at the bottom to contact us about your research project.

How to avoid a desk reject: do’s and don’ts

• Published: 17 June 2024

Cite this article

• Sjoerd Beugelsdijk 1 &
• Allan Bird 2  

3036 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The number of manuscripts submitted to academic journals has increased significantly, and along with that the desk-reject rate also, that is, the rate at which manuscripts are rejected at the very first stage of the review process (Ansell & Samuels, 2021 ). At the Journal of International Business Studies ( JIBS ), roughly 65% of submissions are desk-rejected. In other words, the authors of nearly two-thirds of the manuscripts sent to this journal will not see their submissions reach an area editor or reviewers. Obviously, no one wants to receive a rejection letter; when it is a desk reject, authors may well feel they never even got a fair hearing through a peer-review process. Not only has the number of submissions risen but so has their overall quality. It was inevitable that the desk-reject bar would be raised. Not doing so would have risked overburdening editorial teams and the pool of qualified and dedicated reviewers on which they rely. Already, across all fields of science, potential reviewers are more frequently declining invitations to review, and this further increases the pressure on reviewing editors to desk-reject manuscripts (Dance, 2023 ). Footnote 1

Getting past the desk-reject stage is critical because even if a manuscript is not eventually accepted for publication, the suggestions and comments of an area editor and reviewers— invariably acknowledged experts in the field—can be immeasurably valuable in making improvements for submission to another journal. A desk reject differs from rejection later in the review process because the objective and the process of the two are quite different. Reviewing editors decide by themselves the fate of a manuscript, while peer review is a shared responsibility. The workload of reviewing editors is such that they need to rely on heuristics to make their decisions. Hence, they hone in on specific elements which, if not present, will result in a desk reject. In this editorial, we describe these elements under two headings: (1) effective communication, and (2) theory- and method-related rigor. Our goal is to relay what reviewing editors look for when deciding whether to forward a manuscript to the next level. Our tips and actionable suggestions are summarized in the Appendix, where we also provide a list of 80 questions that serve as a ‘checklist’ of do’s and don’ts. These suggestions are based on more than 4000 Journal of International Business Studies desk-reject decisions between 2016 and 2024. Many of the suggestions and recommendations we provide apply equally to overall guidance about research in international business.

The role of reviewing editors

Reviewing editors are tasked with (1) conserving the time, attention, and energies of area editors, reviewers, and submitting authors, and (2) maintaining the focus and integrity of the journal mission as embodied in its statement of aims and scope. The mechanics of a desk review are straightforward: their purpose is to assess whether a submission meets the journal’s fit, quality, and contribution thresholds. In addition to determining if a manuscript meets those three content criteria, reviewing editors are charged with ensuring that the review process is fair, specifically that it is free of bias, ethical lapses and errors, and that, to a reasonable extent, author concerns or requests are accommodated. More details can be found in the Journal of International Business Studies guidelines for reviewers. Footnote 2

The first step in the desk-review process entails reading the cover letter. Although not required, many authors submit them. They can be used to explain distinctive aspects of the manuscript, for example, a unique approach taken in framing the research question. A cover letter might also be used to make a request, such as for a reviewer knowledgeable about a new analytical approach. We recommend that authors provide pertinent information, such as the names of persons who have previously read and commented on the manuscript, thereby avoiding the possibility of compromising the double-blind peer review should the manuscript move forward in the review process. Footnote 3 Authors should also alert the reviewing editor if other manuscripts or published articles by the author and co-authors address the same topic or draw upon the same dataset as the submitted manuscript. Footnote 4 We recommend submitting a detailed overview of any overlap and differences between the submitted manuscript and the authors’ existing work in the same vein (sometimes referred as an originality matrix), so as to help the reviewing editor assess the contribution of the manuscript. There is an expectation that authors will be transparent with editors.

Reviewing editors are anxious to avoid making type I or type II errors. They do not want to desk reject a manuscript that might end up being a high-quality, impactful article. Making the wrong decision can mean a loss for the journal as well as deny the authors timely publication. On the other hand, forwarding for full review a manuscript that does not meet fit, quality, and contribution thresholds and has little chance of reaching publication is an inefficient use of the time, attention, and effort of editors and reviewers. It also bogs down authors who end up having devoted time pursuing an ultimately fruitless review process rather than improving the manuscript and submitting it elsewhere.

Because there are recurring patterns in the types of issues that lead to a desk reject, reviewing editors use heuristics in making their assessments. In general, a manuscript is desk-rejected if there is not a good fit with the aims and scope of the journal. For the Journal of International Business Studies , this implies the topic has to address an international business topic as explained in the editorial guidelines. Footnote 5 Manuscripts should address topics from an international comparative and/or cross-border angle. This means that ‘just’ analyzing a cross section of countries is not sufficient to be considered for this journal. Similarly, ‘just’ adding some country-specific variables as control variables is not sufficient to qualify as making a contribution to international business. Single-country studies without an IB dimension are a substantial portion of all desk-rejected articles. The heuristics that reviewing editors use can be categorized into two main domains: (1) effective communication and (2) theory- and method-related rigor. Each domain consists of a series of do’s and don’ts. These do’s and don’ts are summarized in the Appendix.

Effective communication

Writing a good manuscript involves reading prior research, data analysis, sense-making, writing, re-analyzing, presenting to colleagues, re-writing, and eventually accepting a certain degree of imperfection. A positive correlation exists between manuscript quality and the time spent on it, but that correlation is far from 1. Certainly, as some seem to believe, a manuscript does not merit review simply because the author claims a lot of time has been spent on it. Underestimation of the importance of effectively communicating with readers is at the root of many desk rejects. We discuss five of them here.

Develop a story

Human beings are pattern-seeking, sense-making, story-telling animals (Leamer, 2009 ). A good manuscript tells a story, one that is believable and memorable. The story may be based on a phenomenological observation or be a theory-based narrative, but a good story is critical to scholarly understanding because storytelling is a cognitive process with sense-making at its core.

It is a mistake to think that storytelling in science is limited to manuscripts using interviews, for which it is a recommended theory-development strategy. It is also a critical part of effective communication for manuscripts based on secondary data where there is often a focus on statistical relationships without a clear understanding of underlying processes. To minimize the probability that a regression result becomes merely a statistical artefact, authors should understand what is driving the statistically significant relationships between the variables. If they do, their story is much better than that of authors who rely on statistical software packages to tell the story for them. In other words, a coefficient that differs significantly from zero is never the essence of the story, but only a part of it. This is one important reason why authors who first analyze the data and then develop hypotheses on that basis (i.e., who practice what is called harking –  h ypothesizing a fter r esults a re k nown) are generally not good storytellers. Harking is not only unscientific, but it also results in unpersuasive stories.

What does make for a good story? In a word, focus. We do not mean honing in on detail to such an extent that the result is a marginal contribution. Far from it. Still, the most valuable contributions are typically very focused. By focus we mean that the core concept is succinctly stated and concisely explained in just a few sentences. The key takeaway should be delivered in plain English understandable to a non-academic audience. Preparing 15-min mock presentations and rehearsing—out loud—the opening and concluding sections can be especially useful in developing a focused story.

Focus alone will not suffice. Delivery is extremely important. Good writing enhances storytelling. We hasten to add that reviewing editors do not reject manuscripts out of hand because of low readability—although obviously the manuscript must be intelligible. Nonetheless, there can be a horn’s effect. A carelessly put together manuscript with typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors that could have easily been caught by running a spelling and grammar check, or table and figure headings that do not match content, or referencing that is incomplete, inconsistent or not applicable, raise doubts about the rigor and precision with which theory is developed and data analyzed. Authors need to take the time to polish their manuscripts; even established researchers spend a considerable amount of time doing that. Poor writing can be fixed by careful language editing down the line.

It is also a mistake to overcomplicate the story by trying to do too much. This typically happens when an author tries to eclectically mix different theories. Reviewing editors are not likely to forward manuscripts in which authors use multiple theories, e.g., the resource-based view of the firm, transaction costs theory, population ecology, and institutional theory. First, each theory comes with its own set of assumptions, causal mechanisms, and boundary conditions, and these can be hard—if not impossible—to integrate into one overarching framework. Second, combining multiple theories tends to result in convoluted arguments with no real punchline.

Another mistake is to center the story around the use of a different method or a distinctive sample to empirically examine relationships that have already been studied extensively. While that strategy might work when submitting to a second-tier journal, top journals expect there to be a clear theoretical contribution and novelty beyond a new method or distinctive sample. Showing that a relationship already examined in other studies holds when expanding the sample, e.g., to different countries or perhaps by using an alternative method, will trigger interest only if there is an unusual theoretical rationale for using the new method or sample. For example, suppose a specific theory has been tested primarily in economically developed countries and that good theoretical arguments exist for why the theory may not apply outside that context; then expanding the sample to less economically developed countries makes sense. The same holds true for a manuscript that an author attempts to ‘sell’ based on the use of a new method. With the exception of method-focused journals such as Organizational Research Methods , most reviewing editors will only forward a method-focused manuscript if the method element has interesting theoretical implications.

What makes for a good story is to some extent time-specific. Management trends come and go, and so does what is seen as a legitimate story. For a long time, authors specified what was called a ‘gap’ in the literature. They would claim to have uncovered a theoretical hole and then outline it in the introduction of their manuscript. Their story was essentially based on their observation that aspect A of theory X had not yet been addressed. As time has passed, phenomenological research has become popular and it is now increasingly legitimate for authors to start their story with a new, interesting, even odd empirical observation. With that, a good story has become one that piques the interest of readers and makes them curious about what comes out. It leaves them thinking to themselves, “Good point. Why didn’t I think of that?” An effective way of gauging what is trending in a particular community of scholars is to read the introductions of conference papers and recently published articles to see what kind of ‘hook’ is used.

Write a clear introduction that explains the what, so what, and now what

The introduction can be a make-or-break point. A desk reject is likely if the introduction is not clear. The reviewing editor will look for focus, a good story, convincing theorizing, and tight empirical tests. There is no universal template for a high-quality introduction, but that does not mean that crafting one is a random process. The best introductions include several recurring elements (Grant & Pollock, 2011 ). The introduction of articles published in top journals may differ from the pattern explained below because of differences in topic, method, data, field, research tradition, and findings. Still, we can discuss several elements that all reviewing editors look for when reading an introduction. Often those elements correspond to the four paragraphs that we propose should form the introduction.

The first paragraph should set the scene. It should include (1) the topic, (2) why it matters, and (3) what is already known about it, including theories used. Writing the opening paragraph is quite challenging because the author must summarize in just a few sentences the state-of-affairs in a field. The second paragraph discusses what we do not yet know about the topic. This can be theory or phenomenon-driven. For example, there is well-established and vast literature on why people resign and change jobs, but we do not yet really understand the recently identified phenomenon of quiet quitting. Describing why quiet quitting could be important is key because it provides the motivation behind the manuscript. The third paragraph describes what the author does to address the question, specifically the theory used, key characteristics of the data (e.g., sample size and country context), as well as the method used. In this paragraph the author should also summarize the findings. In the fourth and final paragraph, authors should circle back to the broader topic – in our example, quiet quitting. They should show why their findings matter as well as the implications. The contribution should be as explicit as possible, not just repeat the empirical findings, but discuss their broader meaning. The last paragraph often ends with a road map indicating how the manuscript is structured.

The typical introduction in management journal articles is around 600 words, divided more or less equally between the paragraphs described above. This means that in each case the material to be covered is handled in just six to eight sentences. The first and last sentences of each paragraph are critical. If those two alone convey the message, the manuscript is probably properly focused. In fact, one way of checking whether a paragraph makes sense is to read those sentences, ignoring the ones in between, to see if the core message is still conveyed. If so, the manuscript is focused and the storyline clear. Another test is to string together the opening sentence of each paragraph. There should be a coherent story supported by a clear line of reasoning. Obviously there are many variations in the way successful authors craft introductions. We describe here what we, as reviewing editors, have found effective introductions have in common.

Know your audience and the language they speak

Imagine entering a room in which the ten most-cited scholars in your area are debating the very topic on which you are writing. They turn to look at you. You have their attention. What can you say about your manuscript that would interest them? Would it impress them if you were to say that you show that the relation between X, Y, and Z—something which they have already analyzed – holds true using your data? What if instead you were able to tell them a powerful story in field-specific language, words that carry a particular connotation and labels with well-known associations? The point is, in a twist to the normal advice to use your own words, you need to tell the story in their kinds of words.

Authors need to immerse themselves in the language used in their area. They need to read the classic articles and books as well as the latest ones on the topic, bearing in mind that there is a significant time lag between manuscript submission and final publication. They need to stay on top of what is happening in the scholarly community in other ways as well. Taking part in academic conferences is one of them—attending panels, observing debates, engaging in discussions, especially delivering papers—all help in understanding where a field is heading. Topics, methods, approaches, and terminology are ‘in the air’ at workshops and during webinars. All of this is part of knowing the audience. Despite all recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), this aspect of targeting your audience has so far not been successfully integrated in existing AI tools.

One less tacit, more formal aspect of audience expectations is understanding the style and format in which core ideas are communicated. Journals have set limits on the number of words used. It is important for authors to stick to them. Reviewing editors do sometimes wade through manuscripts that are considerably longer than the norm, but they are ever mindful of the contribution-to-length ratio. Authors should not try to be exhaustive in providing references. Peppering a text with references, especially when placed mid-sentence, reduces readability. Reviewing editors are familiar with a wide range of research areas. They will catch careless referencing, such as backing up a statement with a reference to an article or book in which no such support can be found, or misattributing a contribution. Inaccurate or excessive referencing reflects badly on the scholarship of a submitting author and may lead to a desk reject. It is important to use current references, as submissions with references ending 15 or 20 years ago signal the manuscript is outdated. Finally, there is no formal rule regarding what particular works authors should reference, but if none of the references have been published in the journal to which they are submitting, it is likely to be taken as evidence of not being in touch with ongoing discussions in the journal, thereby raising the question of fit.

Avoid vague wording

Words matter. Scientific research requires precision. Formal modeling provides it in economics, finance, operations research, and some subfields in sociology and political science. Social sciences, including business and management, rely on precise, unambiguous language. Unfortunately, many authors are not so meticulous. Reviewing editors are not taken in by meaningless jargon or pretentious verbiage. Rather, such language might be taken as an indication that an author has not totally grasped the topic or is attempting to oversell the contribution.

Consider the following seven examples taken from actual manuscripts—followed by our critical comments. (1) We show that an integrated approach is required. This kind of generic statement holds for virtually all topics . (2) We provide a nuanced picture of the complex relationship between X and Y. Attempting to add nuance to a complex concept is an endless exercise—not a goal in itself. The goal should be to make the complex simple without making it simplistic. We mean E = mc 2 simple. (3) Managers should take care of their international HR function. No study is needed to reach this obvious conclusion. (4) We discuss some implications of… Some? Are there others? Vague statements like these make us wonder what is left unsaid, or unresearched, or if the author is unsure of what the implications might be or how to explain them. (5) We uncover heterogeneity that has not been addressed before. To our knowledge, we are the first to analyze... An author may have found something of importance that escaped all others, but maybe it is not sufficiently interesting or indeed even relevant enough to merit publication. (6) We draw upon… What exactly does this mean? Does the author intend to take – in whole or in part – elements from a theory and eclectically combine them? (7) The relation between subsidiary and headquarters: some insights from country X . This last example has to do with crafting meaningful titles. The manuscript title, as well as those of the figures and tables, should be precise and specific and convey meaningful information.

Finally, a word of caution about acknowledging limitations. It is not a recommended strategy to discuss all possible limitations, especially when done at the end of a manuscript, as this may leave readers wondering why they have taken the time to read something the authors themselves think is significantly flawed. Two types of limitations should be identified, but not necessarily addressed in a specific section labeled as such and found at the end of the manuscript. Methodological limitations are ideally addressed in the Method section along with steps taken to mitigate or overcome them. Theoretical limitations relate specifically to what interpretations or conclusions can be drawn from the empirical findings. Rather than listing them as limitations, they can be framed as future lines of inquiry opened up as a result of what was learned from the study.

Write a clear self-standing abstract

Many authors underestimate the importance of the abstract. This is hard to understand because a good abstract gets the attention of potential readers and can entice them to continue reading. An article read is possibly one cited. The abstract is also important in the review process. It is the first thing that a reviewing editor reads. The abstract should give the topic and research question (the motivation), the theoretical angle taken, what the author does (the empirical setting if relevant), the findings, and why the study matters (the contribution). In short, it must convey a considerable amount of information. Writing one takes time and attention, and the abstract should not be the last quick thing authors attend to before submission. All too often abstracts are overly technical and hard to understand without having read the full manuscript.

What can authors do to be sure that what they write in the abstract is meaningful? One way of testing is to draw a line through the key construct named in the abstract and put in its place some other construct in the field. If the abstract makes just as much sense after plugging in that randomly chosen construct, the original abstract is probably uninformative and unconvincing. Let us illustrate the point with a concrete example. Do the following test on this hypothetical abstract: “Institutions have been recognized as a crucial topic in international business research with wide-ranging implications for internationalizing firms. As a result, there are a wide variety of studies in different contexts, using different methods, a diverse set of theories, and a variety of empirical measures. In this article, we review the existing literature, evaluate current approaches critically, and highlight directions for future research.” Now, suppose ‘institutions’ were to be substituted by ‘headquarter–subsidiary relationships’. There is nothing jarring about the resulting version, a sign of an abstract that is too generic.

Theory- and method-related rigor

Distinguish between theory and literature review.

Authors sometimes confuse the literature review with the theory section. Whereas a literature review provides an overview of established findings thereby providing the frame into which a manuscript fits, a theory section provides a set of arguments (embedded in underlying assumptions) that logically lead to a proposition or testable hypothesis. A theory is about the arrows linking construct A to construct B (Thomas et al., 2011 ). In short, theories explain relationships. But rather than providing an integrated framework based on causal theoretical arguments, the theory section in many manuscripts is just a literature review that provides an overview of what other authors have argued or found in their empirical studies. The lack of a strong theory section is an important reason for a desk reject.

Theoretical arguments are often not precise because authors work with overly broad concepts. The result is loosely linked arguments. Another common mistake is to mix arguments from different schools of thought, leading to theoretical imprecision. This, as noted before, leads to poor stories. Reviewing editors are senior scholars and thus aware of the most important differences between the core theories used in a field. This does not mean that manuscripts need only develop narrow arguments derived from a single theoretical framework, but it is generally recognized that combining lenses is challenging (Okhuysen & Bionardi, 2011 ).

Finally, reviewing editors are likely to desk-reject a manuscript when the author excessively uses quotations. Instead of relying on others to say what you want to argue, it is far better to explain the mechanisms directly and explicitly in your own words. There is a risk of misstating what the cited author means to say because quotations are snapshots of broader arguments, and often individual sentences are taken from longer paragraphs.

Spell out the theoretical mechanisms

Ultimately, the theoretical contribution lies in highlighting the set of mechanisms that logically explain the relationship between A and B. Hypotheses are testable predictions derived from a set of arguments that causally and logically relate to one another. Often authors present hypotheses as the result of a set of empirical findings. This leads to truisms—claims that are so self-evident that they are too obvious to mention. In these cases, reviewing editors are inclined to reject manuscripts. Examples can be an effective way to present arguments, but they are no substitute for clear theoretical argumentation. In other words, the plural of anecdote may be data, but data cannot by themselves be the basis for hypotheses.

Hypotheses make testable statements on the relationship between abstract constructs. A good hypothesis is the logical outcome of proper theorizing (Santangelo & Verbeke, 2022 ). Because they are unable to examine theoretical relationships directly, researchers rely on empirical proxies, e.g., patent filings as a proxy for firm innovation, and return on investment for firm performance. It is not uncommon for authors to shift focus from constructs to proxies, and to make statements on relationships between empirical proxies while overlooking the theoretical constructs the proxies are purported to represent. As a general rule of thumb, one should not discuss measurement-related issues (e.g., the variables used as proxies) in the theory section. This makes it possible to keep it as clean as possible and reduces the risk of conflating the theoretical argument supporting hypotheses with the empirical tools used to test them.

Many phenomena in international business are multi-level by nature. For example, country-level variables, such as national cultural differences, may moderate lower-level relationships, such as the dynamic between team leaders and team members. When data are nested in countries, firms, teams, and individuals, one needs to use multi-level methods to disentangle the impact of variations at each level. The real challenge is often not in using multi-level methods, but in developing multi-level theories. Reviewing editors look for a description of the mechanisms linking the micro and the macro levels. If they are not made explicit, a desk reject is likely. To avoid that, authors should make sure they discuss the causal relationships between the different levels.

As a rule, authors should also avoid hypotheses that involve more than one relationship. For example, a model where an increase in A is theorized to cause a decrease in B and the A–B relationship is moderated by C should have two hypotheses, not one. Compound hypotheses are inherently complex and consequently often poorly worded, and this may lead to a desk reject.

Isolate the theoretical channels empirically

In addition to clearly specifying the nature of the theoretical argument, empirical tests of hypothesized relationships need to get as close as possible to a direct test of the proposed mechanisms. This is done by providing convincing theoretical arguments and a series of empirical tests that serve two goals. First, to show that the mechanism that is theorized exists empirically. Second, to rule out alternative plausible explanations. Ruling out alternative explanations is at least as important as providing evidence for the theoretical mechanisms. This should be taken into account when designing the study and prior to data collection. A number of methods are available to identify mechanisms, including—but not limited to—instrumental variables, natural or quasi experiments, regression discontinuity design, difference-in-difference analysis, randomized control trials, propensity score matching, and longitudinal studies.

Increasingly, authors combine multiple methods to corroborate the main effects found, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, including AI. In all cases, it is critical to explain why a specific method was used, the problem it addresses, and how it helps us better understand the theoretical mechanisms. Reviewing editors will evaluate whether the methods used are adequate to test the proposed theoretical relationship between constructs. If the answer is no, a desk reject is likely. Using multiple inadequate methods does not substitute for using a (single) adequate one.

Although theorizing is all about developing causal arguments, establishing causation is often empirically difficult. Authors should therefore avoid mentioning causation unless they can empirically test for it. Language should be precise and distinguish between association, e.g., an increase in political risk is associated with a decrease in foreign direct investment, and causation, e.g., an increase in an MNE’s foreign investments reduces its organizational slack. Note that all journals prefer to see evidence of causality, but will often accept association.

Match construct and empirical measure

Empirical research relies on proxy measures for theoretical constructs. More often than not, proxy measures are imperfect. The alignment between construct and measurement is critical in empirical research, and ideally already addressed at the design stage of a research project. Researchers doing survey-based studies typically develop custom-made measurement instruments, other researchers using those instruments in later studies need to make sure that the instruments align definitionally with their own theoretical constructs. Similarly, secondary data-based research often relies on data collected for other purposes, and hence the variables used to measure the theoretical constructs are often imperfect proxies.

One way to check if proxies are distal is to write the definition of a construct and the way the construct is measured on separate pieces of paper, and to then, without looking at the rest of the text, ask whether the two are aligned. With survey instruments, it can be useful to examine the individual items used to measure the construct. For example, research using Hofstede’s power distance dimension might compare Hofstede’s definition of the power distance construct with the original items used to measure it. Distal proxies are relatively easy for reviewing editors to detect, and are a common reason for desk rejects. Harking not only leads to poor stories, as explained earlier, but also to the use of distal proxies as authors try to retrofit an already-existing measure to a theoretical construct.

Link research question, theory, hypotheses, and implications

By the time the reviewing editor reaches the Discussion section, the primary focus is on the third criterion—contribution. It is not enough to provide a convincing answer to the research question. Authors must demonstrate that the answer contributes to a broader or deeper understanding of theoretical concerns or practical phenomena. Often described in terms of ‘implications’, what the Discussion section ideally accomplishes is an explanation of how the findings of the study should be understood, i.e., what the findings mean. A failure to position a manuscript’s contribution into a broader theoretical context may lead the reviewing editor to conclude that the manuscript’s contribution is narrow or trivial.

Theoretical implications are difficult to describe, yet doing so well is essential. One way to elicit them is by asking what changes should be made to extant theory to account for the empirical results found. When stating theoretical and empirical implications, it is best not to overreach and claim overly bold implications that do not logically follow from the findings. To sum up: reviewing editors look for a logical fit between the research question, the hypotheses, and the overall theoretical implications; and they expect the implications to be substantive.

Authors as prosecuting attorneys

The metaphor of trying a case in a court of law is useful when conceptualizing the challenges facing authors in getting their manuscripts published. Authors are like prosecuting attorneys in that they must have a convincing story supported by reliable witnesses and credible evidence. Prosecuting attorneys need to relate the various elements of a crime—motive, means, and opportunity—in a compellingly persuasive way. Likewise, authors must craft a story that explains a phenomenon, gather evidence—primary and secondary data, elicit reliable testimony from unimpeachable witnesses—authors of other relevant research, and finally, validate their closing arguments using quantitative and qualitative analytical tools. In essence, both prosecuting attorneys and authors are saying, “This is my story and I can back it up, so believe me.” In this metaphor, reviewing editors act like judges overseeing preliminary hearings in that they weigh the validity of the case before them. Is it strong enough, i.e., sufficiently credible, to warrant proceeding further? If a manuscript does not communicate persuasively that it is sufficiently compelling in terms of theory, method, analysis, and conclusion, the answer will be no, a desk reject.

We have attempted to demystify the desk-review stage of the review process by sharing our insights and the heuristics we use as reviewing editors. We trust that authors will find our suggestions helpful and look forward to reviewing their manuscripts. Our suggestions are subject to some limitations. Most of the articles published in the Journal of International Business Studies , and business and management journals more broadly, are hypothesis-testing. Thus, our recommendations are predominantly derived from reviewing such manuscripts. Relatedly, most manuscripts submitted to social science journals, including the Journal of International Business Studies , fall within the domain of the logical positivist tradition. Despite these limitations, we believe that following our suggestions can increase the probability a manuscript will pass the desk-review stage, which is a critical step towards publication.

Appendix: How to minimize the probability of a desk rejection

Can I explain the story of my paper in 2 min in non-academic language?

Suppose I take out the first and final sentence of each paragraph, do the two sentences make sense?

Is my story focused, straightforward, and not complicated?

Is my story about a theory or practice, not about a sample or method?

If I have a story on method or sample, do I explain why this matters theoretically?

Did I present the paper before submitting it?

Did I rehearse a 15-min presentation out loud?

Do figures and diagrams add substantively to descriptions and explanations in the text?

Write a clear introduction

Is my introduction in the range of 500 to 750 words?

Can I explain in one sentence why the topic matters to non-academics? (Don’t answer “yes,” write out the sentence).

Does my first paragraph clearly: (1) identify the topic, (2) explain why it matters, (3) describe what is already known?

Select the first and final sentence of each paragraph, do those two sentences make sense? And do those eight to ten sentences from the paragraphs in the Introduction pull the reader in?

Know your audience

Can I write down three names of scholars that I would like to read the article?

Can I explain why I selected these three names?

Did I check if members of the editorial team have recently published on the topic of my paper?

Do I stay within the recommended word length of the journal?

If I exceed the word length, do I provide an explanation for why in the accompanying cover letter?

Did I check the latest editorials in the journal?

Did I check if there are relevant forthcoming articles published on the website already?

Do I refer to articles published in the journal to which I am submitting?

Did I read the journal’s style guide and prepare my manuscript accordingly?

Am I explicit about what is novel in my paper?

Did I perform a search in the journal to which I am submitting using the key terms in my manuscript?

Is each sentence in the entire manuscript no longer than two lines?

Do I limit the number of abbreviations and acronyms in my article?

If I use an abbreviation, do I explain it the first time I introduce it?

Are figures and diagrams comprehensible without reference to the written text?

Are my tables and figures logically numbered and put at the end of the manuscript, not embedded in the main text?

Write a clear abstract

Does the abstract tell the story in the manuscript?

Does the abstract give the topic, research question (motivation), theoretical approach, empirical setting (if relevant), findings, and why the study matters (contribution)?

In the abstract, if I replace the key construct of the manuscript with some other key construct, does the abstract no longer make sense?

Did I ask colleagues to read my abstract without them knowing the entire paper?

Distinguish between literature review and theory

Does the literature review clearly frame my research question in terms of prior research?

Is my literature review focused on work relevant to my specific research question, the key constructs, and chosen theoretical lens?

Do I identify a specific theory, define key constructs, and delineate relevant premises/assumptions?

Do all references used in the text refer to the statement made in that particular sentence? (In other words, do I make sure there are no ‘casual’ references?)

Spell out theoretical mechanisms

Do I rely on a well-defined theoretical model?

Do I present a compelling logic, e.g., line of reasoning, rather than rely on references to prior empirical works to support my hypotheses?

If I combine multiple theories, do I explain how the assumptions of these theories are compatible?

Do I rule out alternative explanations for the findings I report?

Do my hypotheses have a counterfactual? Put differently, can my hypotheses also not be true?

Do I avoid hypotheses that include more than one relationship?

Do I minimize the use of quotations to make my argument?

Isolate theoretical channels empirically

Are my hypotheses predicated on a theoretical argument? Alternatively: Do I make sure my hypotheses are not predicated on empirical findings (i.e., merely a retest with a different data set of prior empirical findings?)

Do my hypotheses constitute tests of theoretical (as opposed to empirical) relationships?

If I test for moderating/interaction effects, do I discuss the economic effect size of the total effect (e.g., plot the marginal effects in a graph)?

Do I address endogeneity?

Do I discuss how my methods and measures are suitable to test for the mechanisms I theorize?

Do I describe how I arrive at my sample?

Do I explain why my sample is appropriate for answering my research question and testing my hypotheses?

Do I provide a table with the characteristics of the observations and possible subsamples (e.g., countries, firms per country, number of teams, etc.)?

If my data are nested, do I control for the nested structured of my data, for example using multi-level methods?

If I use multi-level methods, do I provide the intra-class correlations?

Do I include a correlation table?

Is each empirical proxy I use in my analysis closely aligned with its respective abstract construct in my theoretical model?

Do I explain how a measure that was developed and used in other studies is appropriate for use in my study?

If I adapt existing measures to my study context, do I explicitly explain why and how?

If my dependent and independent variables are from the same survey instrument, do I address and mitigate common method variance?

Do I provide a list of variables I use in my analysis (e.g., in the appendix)?

Do I write down the names of the variables in full in the tables and figures?

Do I provide data sources for all variables (in the text and in the appendix)?

If I use AI tools to collect my data, am I transparent on the process and coding?

Do I include references to the data sources in the paper (main text, footnote, reference)?

Do I provide references of scholars who have used the same measures?

Do I provide a discussion of the economic effect size?

Do I explain novelty in a consistent manner in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections?

Do I identify theoretical implications of my findings (being careful not to extrapolate beyond what the method and data allow)?

Do I identify practical implications of my findings, i.e., specific, actionable options?

If I read the practical implications independent of the rest of the manuscript, are they meaningful? (In other words, do I make sure my implications are not obvious/generic?)

Do I clearly describe what I can explain and what I cannot explain (sometimes referred to as ‘limitations’) of my study?

Miscellaneous

If I submitted this manuscript before to another journal and it was rejected after review, did I incorporate the comments provided?

Did I prepare a cover letter?

Do I have a possible conflict of interest (e.g., colleagues who have reviewed the manuscript before, or an editor with whom I am close friends, or an editor who has been my co-author)? If yes, am I transparent about that in my cover letter?

If my manuscript is based on data I used in other manuscripts (published or not), do I explain this in my cover letter?

If my manuscript is based on data I used in other manuscripts (published or not), can I explain the difference in theory and/or variables used?

If this paper is part of a series of studies on a related topic, do I make sure there is no textual overlap between this new manuscript and other ones?

Did I check if all in-text references are listed?

Are all references in the same style and format and does that format comply with journal’s requirements?

Do I acknowledge the limits of using AI tools in my efforts to speak to the audience I have in mind?

Am I transparent about how, when, and where I have used AI in my study (e.g., literature review or analytical tools)?

Journals differ in who they nominate to handle the desk-reject stage. Sometimes it is the Editor-in-Chief, sometimes the Managing Editor, and sometimes, like at this journal, desk rejects are handled by dedicated reviewing editors.

See https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41267/authors/review-process

Section 3.3.5 of the Journals Code of Ethics of the Academy of International Business provides helpful examples of potential conflicts of interest between authors and an editor or reviewer: “(1) one of the Authors is at the same institution as the nominated Editor or Reviewer; (2) one of the Authors was a member of the Editor or Reviewer’s dissertation committee, or vice versa; or (3) one of the Authors, and the Editor or Reviewer, are currently Co‐Authors on another manuscript or have been Co‐Authors on a manuscript within the past three years.”

See https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41267/authors/frequently-asked-questions for a sample originality matrix.

https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41267/authors/editorial-policy

Ansell, B. W., & Samuels, D. J. (2021). Desk rejecting: a better use of your time. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54 , 686–689.

Google Scholar  

Dance, A. (2023). Peer review needs a radical rethink. Nature, 614 , 581–583.

Article   Google Scholar  

Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 873–879.

Leamer, E. (2009). Macroeconomic patterns and stories . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J. P. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 6–11.

Santangelo, G., & Verbeke, A. (2022). Actionable guidelines to improve ‘theory related’ contributions to international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 53 (9), 1843–1855.

Thomas, D. C., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Brannen, M. Y. (2011). Explaining theoretical relationships in international business research: Focusing on the arrows, NOT the boxes. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (9), 1073–1078.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1014 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

Sjoerd Beugelsdijk

Goa Institute of Management, Sanquelim Campus, Poriem, Sattari, Goa, 403505, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sjoerd Beugelsdijk .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Beugelsdijk, S., Bird, A. How to avoid a desk reject: do’s and don’ts. J Int Bus Stud (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00712-8

Download citation

Published : 17 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00712-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research