research finding meaning

Research Findings – Objectives , Importance and Techniques

Published 16 October, 2023

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

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

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

Objectives of finding section in the research paper

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

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

Importance of findings in the research paper

The finding section in the research paper has great importance as

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

How to Write Research Findings?

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

Step 1: Review the guidelines or instructions of the instructor

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

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

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

Step 3: Design effective visual presentations

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

Step 4: Write findings section

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

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

Step 5: Review draft of findings section

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

Read Also: Research Paper Conclusion Tips

Techniques of summarizing important findings

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

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

Stuck During Your Dissertation

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

Other Related Guides

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

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

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

Recent Research Guides for 2023

Get 15% off your first order with My Research Topics

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

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

Research Topics & Ideas

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

Research Guide

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

• Affiliate Program

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

How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research

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

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

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

What is included in the Results section?

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

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

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

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

How are the results organized?

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

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

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

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

Attitudes towards postoperative care in patients over the age of 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captioning and Referencing Tables and Figures

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

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

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

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

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

Steps for Composing the Results Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wordvice Resources

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

All Subjects

study guides for every class

That actually explain what's on your next test, from class:, ap research.

Findings are the results or conclusions derived from research, analysis, or investigation, providing evidence that supports or refutes a hypothesis or argument. They play a crucial role in presenting an argument as they offer data and insights that inform the context, purpose, and audience of the work, ultimately shaping the narrative and persuasive elements of the argument.

congrats on reading the definition of Findings . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• Findings should be presented clearly and logically to enhance the audience's understanding and engagement with the argument.
• Effective presentation of findings often includes visual aids such as charts and graphs to illustrate key data points.
• Findings must be directly linked to the research question or hypothesis, providing clear support for the argument being made.
• Transparency in how findings were obtained is crucial for credibility; this includes discussing methodology and potential limitations.
• The interpretation of findings can vary based on context, making it essential to consider audience perspectives when presenting them.

Review Questions

• Findings serve as the backbone of an argument by providing concrete evidence that supports claims made. They help establish credibility and engage the audience by demonstrating that the argument is grounded in research. By clearly linking findings to the main points, they enhance the persuasive power of the argument and make it more compelling.
• When presenting findings, it's important to consider the background and expectations of different audiences. For example, a more technical audience may appreciate detailed statistical analyses, while a general audience might benefit from simplified explanations and visual representations. Tailoring language, format, and emphasis on specific findings can help ensure that the message resonates effectively with each audience type.
• Findings can significantly impact future research directions by highlighting gaps in knowledge or suggesting new avenues for investigation based on unexpected results. Additionally, in policy-making contexts, compelling findings can lead to changes in legislation or resource allocation by providing evidence for effective practices. The implications of findings extend beyond immediate conclusions, fostering ongoing dialogue and development within a field.

Related terms

Evidence : Information or data used to support a claim or argument, essential for validating findings.

Conclusion : The final summary or decision reached after considering the findings, which ties back to the original research question or hypothesis.

Analysis : The process of interpreting and making sense of the data collected during research, leading to the development of findings.

" Findings " also found in:

Subjects ( 5 ).

• AP Psychology
• Business Communication
• Communication Research Methods
• Fundamentals of Creative Development
• Market Research: Tools and Techniques for Data Collection and Analysis

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Science, health, and public trust.

September 8, 2021

Explaining How Research Works

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some additional resources:

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

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Implement Sci

Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks

Paul m wilson.

1 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, YO10 5DD, UK

Mark Petticrew

2 Social and Environmental Health Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WC1E 7HT, UK

Mike W Calnan

3 School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, CT2 7NF, UK

Irwin Nazareth

4 MRC General Practice Research Framework, University College London, NW1 2ND, UK

Associated Data

Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.

However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.

We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.

Conclusions

There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Healthcare resources are finite, so it is imperative that the delivery of high-quality healthcare is ensured through the successful implementation of cost-effective health technologies. However, there is growing recognition that the full potential for research evidence to improve practice in healthcare settings, either in relation to clinical practice or to managerial practice and decision making, is not yet realised. Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge to routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK [ 1 - 5 ] and internationally [ 6 ].

As interest in the research to practice gap has increased, so too has the terminology used to describe the approaches employed [ 7 , 8 ]. Diffusion, dissemination, implementation, knowledge transfer, knowledge mobilisation, linkage and exchange, and research into practice are all being used to describe overlapping and interrelated concepts and practices. In this review, we have used the term dissemination, which we view as a key element in the research to practice (knowledge translation) continuum. We define dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and health service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice.

Most applied health research funding agencies expect and demand some commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. However, there does appear to be a lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination [ 9 ]. Moreover, although most consider dissemination to be a shared responsibility between those funding and those conducting the research, the expectations on and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another [ 9 ].

We have previously highlighted the need for researchers to consider carefully the costs and benefits of dissemination and have raised concerns about the nature and variation in type of guidance issued by funding bodies to their grant holders and applicants [ 10 ]. Against this background, we have performed a systematic scoping review with the following two aims: to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities; and to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks relating to knowledge translation continuum that provide enough detail on the dissemination elements that researchers could use it to guide their dissemination activities.

The following databases were searched to identify potential studies for inclusion: MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations (1950 to June 2010); EMBASE (1980 to June 2010); CINAHL (1981 to June 2010); PsycINFO (1806 to June 2010); EconLit (1969 to June 2010); Social Services Abstracts (1979 to June 2010); Social Policy and Practice (1890 to June 2010); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Cochrane Library 2010: Issue 1).

The search terms were identified through discussion by the research team, by scanning background literature, and by browsing database thesauri. There were no methodological, language, or date restrictions. Details of the database specific search strategies are presented Additional File 1 , Appendix 1.

Citation searches of five articles [ 11 - 15 ] identified prior to the database searches were performed in Science Citation Index (Web of Science), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Google Scholar (February 2009).

As this review was undertaken as part of a wider project aiming to assess the dissemination activity of UK applied and public health researchers [ 16 ], we searched the websites of 10 major UK funders of health services and public health research. These were the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Chief Scientist Office, the Department of Health Policy Research Programme, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, the NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme and the Wellcome Trust. We aimed to identify any dissemination/communication frameworks, guides, or plans that were available to grant applicants or holders.

We also interrogated the websites of four key agencies with an established record in the field of dissemination and knowledge transfer. These were the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ( AHRQ ) , the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD).

As a number of databases and websites were searched, some degree of duplication resulted. In order to manage this issue, the titles and abstracts of records were downloaded and imported into EndNote bibliographic software, and duplicate records removed.

References were screened independently by two reviewers; those studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Where it was not possible to exclude articles based on title and abstract alone, full text versions were obtained and their eligibility was assessed independently by two reviewers. Where disagreements occurred, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought and resolved by discussion and arbitration by a third reviewer.

To be eligible for inclusion, papers needed to either present an explicit framework or plan designed to be used by a researcher to guide their dissemination activity, or an explicit framework or plan that referred to dissemination in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework but that provided enough detail on the dissemination elements that a researcher could then use it. Papers that referred to dissemination in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, but that did not describe in any detail those process elements relating to dissemination were excluded from the review. A list of excluded papers is included in Additional File 2 , Appendix 2.

For each included paper we recorded the publication date, a description of the main elements of the framework, whether there was any reference to other included studies, and whether there was an explicit theoretical basis to the framework. Included papers that did not make an explicit reference to an underlying theory were re-examined to determine whether any implicit use of theory could be identified. This entailed scrutinising the references and assessing whether any elements from theories identified in other papers were represented in the text. Data from each paper meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted by one researcher and independently checked for accuracy by a second.

A narrative synthesis [ 17 ] of included frameworks was undertaken to present the implicit and explicit theoretical basis of included frameworks and to explore any relationships between them.

Our searches identified 6,813 potentially relevant references (see Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). Following review of the titles and abstracts, we retrieved 122 full papers for a more detailed screening. From these, we included 33 frameworks (reported in 44 papers) Publications that did not meet our inclusion criteria are listed in Additional File 2 , Appendix 2.

Identification of conceptual frameworks .

Characteristics of conceptual frameworks designed to be used by researchers

Table ​ Table1 1 summarises in chronological order, twenty conceptual frameworks designed for use by researchers [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 18 - 34 ]. Where we have described elements of frameworks that have been reported across multiple publications, these are referenced in the Table.

Conceptual frameworks designed for use by researchers

Theoretical underpinnings of dissemination frameworks

Thirteen of the twenty included dissemination frameworks were either explicitly or implicitly judged to be based on the Persuasive Communication Matrix [ 35 , 36 ]. Originally derived from a review of the literature of persuasion which sought to operationalise Lasswell's seminal description of persuasive communications as being about 'Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect' [ 37 ]. McGuire argued that there are five variables that influence the impact of persuasive communications. These are the source of communication, the message to be communicated, the channels of communication, the characteristics of the audience (receiver), and the setting (destination) in which the communication is received.

Included frameworks were judged to encompass either three [ 21 , 27 , 29 ], four [ 15 , 20 , 23 , 26 , 28 , 31 , 38 ], or all five [ 11 , 18 , 25 ] of McGuire's five input variables, namely, the source, channel, message, audience, and setting. The earliest conceptual model included in the review explicitly applied McGuire's five input variables to the dissemination of medical technology assessments [ 11 ]. Only one other framework (in its most recent version) explicitly acknowledges McGuire [ 17 ]; the original version acknowledged the influence of Winkler et al . on its approach to conceptualising systematic review dissemination [ 18 ]. The original version of the CRD approach [ 18 , 39 ] is itself referred to by two of the other eight frameworks [ 20 , 23 ]

Diffusion of Innovations theory [ 40 , 41 ] is explicitly cited by eight of the dissemination frameworks [ 11 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 34 ]. Diffusion of Innovations offers a theory of how, why, and at what rate practices or innovations spread through defined populations and social systems. The theory proposes that there are intrinsic characteristics of new ideas or innovations that determine their rate of adoption, and that actual uptake occurs over time via a five-phase innovation-decision process (knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation). The included frameworks are focussed on the knowledge and persuasion stages of the innovation-decision process.

Two of the included dissemination frameworks make reference to Social Marketing [ 42 ]. One briefly discusses the potential application of social and commercial marketing and advertising principles and strategies in the promotion of non-commercial services, ideas, or research-based knowledge [ 22 ]. The other briefly argues that a social marketing approach could take into account a planning process involving 'consumer' oriented research, objective setting, identification of barriers, strategies, and new formats [ 30 ]. However, this framework itself does not represent a comprehensive application of social marketing theory and principles, and instead highlights five factors that are focussed around formatting evidence-based information so that it is clear and appealing by defined target audiences.

Three other distinct dissemination frameworks were included, two of which are based on literature reviews and researcher experience [ 14 , 32 ]. The first framework takes a novel question-based approach and aims to increase researchers' awareness of the type of context information that might prove useful when disseminating knowledge to target audiences [ 14 ]. The second framework presents a model that can be used to identify barriers and facilitators and to design interventions to aid the transfer and utilization of research knowledge [ 32 ]. The final framework is derived from Two Communities Theory [ 43 ] and proposes pragmatic strategies for communicating across conflicting cultures research and policy; it suggests a shift away from simple one-way communication of research to researchers developing collaborative relationships with policy makers [ 33 ].

Characteristics of conceptual frameworks relating to knowledge translation that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities

Table ​ Table2 2 summarises in chronological order the dissemination elements of 13 conceptual frameworks relating to knowledge translation that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities [ 13 , 44 - 55 ].

Conceptual frameworks relating to knowledge translation that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities

Only two of the included knowledge translation frameworks were judged to encompass four of McGuire's five variables for persuasive communications [ 45 , 47 ]. One framework [ 45 ] explicitly attributes these variables as being derived from Winkler et al [ 11 ]. The other [ 47 ] refers to strong direct evidence but does not refer to McGuire or any of the other included frameworks.

Diffusion of Innovations theory [ 40 , 41 ] is explicitly cited in eight of the included knowledge translation frameworks [ 13 , 45 - 49 , 52 , 56 ]. Of these, two represent attempts to operationalise and apply the theory, one in the context of evidence-based decision making and practice [ 13 ], and the other to examine how innovations in organisation and delivery of health services spread and are sustained in health service organisations [ 47 , 57 ]. The other frameworks are exclusively based on the theory and are focussed instead on strategies to accelerate the uptake of evidence-based knowledge and or interventions

Two of the included knowledge translation frameworks [ 50 , 53 ] are explicitly based on resource or knowledge-based Theory of the Firm [ 58 , 59 ]. Both frameworks propose that successful knowledge transfer (or competitive advantage) is determined by the type of knowledge to be transferred as well as by the development and deployment of appropriate skills and infrastructure at an organisational level.

Two of the included knowledge translation frameworks purport to be based upon a range of theoretical perspectives. The Coordinated Implementation model is derived from a range of sources, including theories of social influence on attitude change, the Diffusion of Innovations, adult learning, and social marketing [ 45 ]. The Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model was developed using concepts from Diffusion of Innovations, social ecology, as well as the health promotion, quality improvement, and implementation literature [ 52 ].

Three other distinct knowledge translation frameworks were included, all of which are based on a combination of literature reviews and researcher experience [ 44 , 51 , 54 ].

Conceptual frameworks provided by UK funders

Of the websites of the 10 UK funders of health services and public health research, only the ESRC made a dissemination framework available to grant applicants or holders (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) [ 26 ]. A summary version of another included framework is available via the publications section of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation [ 60 ]. However, no reference is made to it in the submission guidance they make available to research applicants.

All of the UK funding bodies made brief references to dissemination in their research grant application guides. These would simply ask applicants to briefly indicate how findings arising from the research will be disseminated (often stating that this should be other than via publication in peer-reviewed journals) so as to promote or facilitate take up by users in the health services.

This systematic scoping review presents to our knowledge the most comprehensive overview of conceptual/organising frameworks relating to research dissemination. Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks that were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.

Our search strategy was deliberately broad, and we searched a number of relevant databases and other sources with no language or publication status restrictions, reducing the chance that some relevant studies were excluded from the review and of publication or language bias. However, we restricted our searches to health and social science databases, and it is possible that searches targeting for example the management or marketing literature may have revealed additional frameworks. In addition, this review was undertaken as part of a project assessing UK research dissemination, so our search for frameworks provided by funding agencies was limited to the UK. It is possible that searches of funders operating in other geographical jurisdictions may have identified other studies. We are also aware that the way in which we have defined the process of dissemination and our judgements as to what constitutes sufficient detail may have resulted in some frameworks being excluded that others may have included or vice versa. Given this, and as an aid to transparency, we have included the list of excluded papers as Additional File 2 , Appendix 2 so as to allow readers to assess our, and make their own, judgements on the literature identified.

Despite these potential limitations, in this review we have identified 33 frameworks that are available and could be used to help guide dissemination planning and activity. By way of contrast, a recent systematic review of the knowledge transfer and exchange literature (with broader aims and scope) [ 61 ] identified five organising frameworks developed to guide knowledge transfer and exchange initiatives (defined as involving more than one way communications and involving genuine interaction between researchers and target audiences) [ 13 - 15 , 62 , 63 ]. All were identified by our searches, but only three met our specific inclusion criteria of providing sufficient dissemination process detail [ 13 - 15 ]. One reviewed methods for assessment of research utilisation in policy making [ 62 ], whilst the other reviewed knowledge mapping as a tool for understanding the many knowledge creation and translation resources and processes in a health system [ 63 ].

There is a large amount of theoretical convergence among the identified frameworks. This all the more striking given the wide range of theoretical approaches that could be applied in the context of research dissemination [ 64 ], and the relative lack of cross-referencing between the included frameworks. Three distinct but interlinked theories appear to underpin (at least in part) 28 of the included frameworks. There has been some criticism of health communications that are overly reliant on linear messenger-receiver models and do not draw upon other aspects of communication theory [ 65 ]. Although researcher focused, the included frameworks appear more participatory than simple messenger-receiver models, and there is recognition of the importance of context and emphasis on the key to successful dissemination being dependent on the need for interaction with the end user.

As we highlight in the introduction, there is recognition among international funders both of the importance of and their role in the dissemination of research [ 9 ]. Given the current political emphasis on reducing deficiencies in the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could be making and advocating more systematic use of conceptual frameworks in the planning of research dissemination.

Rather than asking applicants to briefly indicate how findings arising from their proposed research will be disseminated (as seems to be the case in the UK), funding agencies could consider encouraging grant applicants to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination. Such an approach could be made a conditional part of any grant application process; an organising framework such as those described in this review could be used to demonstrate the rationale and understanding underpinning their proposed plans for dissemination. More systematic use of conceptual frameworks would then provide opportunities to evaluate across a range of study designs whether utilising any of the identified frameworks to guide research dissemination does in fact enhance the uptake of research findings in policy and practice.

There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that could be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically informed approach to their research dissemination.

Competing interests

Paul Wilson is an Associate Editor of Implementation Science. All decisions on this manuscript were made by another senior editor. Paul Wilson works for, and has contributed to the development of the CRD framework which is included in this review. The author(s) declare that they have no other competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed to the conception, design, and analysis of the review. All authors were involved in the writing of the first and all subsequent versions of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Paul Wilson is the guarantor.

Supplementary Material

Appendix 1: Database search strategies . This file includes details of the database specific search strategies used in the review.

Appendix 2: Full-text papers assessed for eligibility but excluded from the review . This file includes details of full-text papers assessed for eligibility but excluded from the review.

Acknowledgements

This review was undertaken as part of a wider project funded by the MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network (Ref: PHSRN 11). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.

• Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. London: Stationery Office. 2006.
• Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. London: Department of Health; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health. Best Research for Best Health: A new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Health Research. Delivering Health Research. National Institute for Health Research Progress Report 2008/09. London: Department of Health. 2009.
• Tooke JC. Report of the High Level Group on Clinical Effectiveness A report to Sir Liam Donaldson Chief Medical Officer. London: Department of Health. 2007.
• World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2004.
• Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006; 26 :13–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization. Bridging the 'know-do' gap: meeting on knowledge translation in global health 10-12 October 2005. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Légaré F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008; 86 :125–55. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Why promote the findings of single research studies? BMJ. 2008; 336 :722. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winkler JD, Lohr KN, Brook RH. Persuasive communication and medical technology assessment. Arch Intern Med. 1985; 145 :314–17. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lomas J. Diffusion, Dissemination, and Implementation: Who Should Do What. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993; 703 :226–37. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A. A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Online J Knowl Synth Nurs. 2002; 9 :7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003; 8 :94–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. Knowledge Transfer Study G. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003; 81 :221–48. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK. Implement Sci. 2010; 5 :61. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. 3. York: University of York; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. York: University of York. 1994.
• National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. A Review of the Literature on Dissemination and Knowledge Utilization. Austin, TX: National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. 1996.
• Hughes M, McNeish D, Newman T, Roberts H, Sachdev D. What works? Making connections: linking research and practice. A review by Barnardo's Research and Development Team. Ilford: Barnardo's. 2000.
• Harmsworth S, Turpin S, Rees A, Pell G, TQEF National Co-ordination Team; Bridging the Gap Innovations Project. Creating an Effective Dissemination Strategy. An Expanded Interactive Workbook for Educational Development Projects. Centre for Higher Education Practice: Open University. 2001.
• Herie M, Martin GW. Knowledge diffusion in social work: a new approach to bridging the gap. Soc Work. 2002; 47 :85–95. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scullion PA. Effective dissemination strategies. Nurse Res. 2002; 10 :65–77. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farkas M, Jette AM, Tennstedt S, Haley SM, Quinn V. Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: an organizing framework. Gerontologist. 2003; 43 (Spec 1):47–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Communication Notes. Developing a dissemination plan Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. 2004.
• Economic and Social Research Council. Communications strategy: a step-by-step guide. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. 2004.
• European Commission. European Research. A guide to successful communication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter D, Nieva V, Albaghal T, Sorra J. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation, Programs, Tools and Practices. Vol. 4. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. Development of a Planning Tool to Guide Dissemination of Research Results. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauman AE, Nelson DE, Pratt M, Matsudo V, Schoeppe S. Dissemination of physical activity evidence, programs, policies, and surveillance in the international public health arena. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31 (1 Suppl):S57–S65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Formoso G, Marata AM, Magrini N. Social marketing: should it be used to promote evidence-based health information? Soc Sci Med. 2007; 64 :949–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarinpoush F, Sychowski SV, Sperling J. Effective Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: A Framework. Toronto: Imagine Canada. 2007.
• Majdzadeh R, Sadighi J, Nejat S, Mahani AS, Gholami J. Knowledge translation for research utilization: design of a knowledge translation model at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008; 28 :270–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friese B, Bogenschneider K. The voice of experience: How social scientists communicate family research to policymakers. Fam Relat. 2009; 58 :229–43. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan CT, Nembhard IM, Stern AF, Brush JE Jr, Krumholz HM, Bradley EH. Blueprint for the dissemination of evidence-based practices in health care. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2010; 86 :1–16. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuire WJ. In: Handbook of social psychology. Lindzey G, Aronsen E, editor. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing; 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change; pp. 136–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuire WJ. In: Public communication campaigns. 3. Rice R, Atkin C, editor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001. Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive communications; pp. 22–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lasswell HD. In: The communication of ideas. Bryson L, editor. New York: Harper and Row; 1948. The structure and function of communication in society; pp. 37–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Developing an Effective Dissemination Plan. Austin, Tx: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL); 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freemantle N, Watt I. Dissemination: implementing the findings of research. Health Libr Rev. 1994; 11 :133–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers EM. The diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5. New York, London: Free Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kotler P, Zaltman G. Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change. J Market. 1971; 35 :3–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caplan N. The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci. 1979; 22 :459–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funk SG, Tornquist EM, Champagne MT. A model for improving the dissemination of nursing research. West J Nurs Res. 1989; 11 :361–72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lomas J. Teaching old (and not so old) docs new tricks: effective ways to implement research findings. CHEPA working paper series No 93-4. Hamiltion, Ont: McMaster University; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott SJ, O'Loughlin J, Robinson K, Eyles J, Cameron R, Harvey D, Raine K, Gelskey D. Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project Strategic and Research Advisory Groups. Conceptualizing dissemination research and activity: the case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Health Educ Behav. 2003; 30 :267–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Macfarlane, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. How to spread good ideas. A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. London: National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO) 2004.
• Green LW, Orleans C, Ottoson JM, Cameron R, Pierce JP, Bettinghaus EP. Inferring strategies for disseminating physical activity policies, programs, and practices from the successes of tobacco control. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31 (1 Suppl):S66–S81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Kelder SH. Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31 (1 Suppl):S35–S44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landry R, Amara N, Ouimet M. Determinants of Knowledge Transfer: Evidence from Canadian University Researchers in Natural Sciences and Engineering. J Technol Transfer. 2007; 32 :561–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumbusch JL, Kirkham SR, Khan KB, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, Anderson JM. Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31 :130–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008; 34 :228–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clinton M, Merritt KL, Murray SR. Using corporate universities to facilitate knowledge transfer and achieve competitive advantage: An exploratory model based on media richness and type of knowledge to be transferred. International Journal of Knowledge Management. 2009; 5 :43–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell P, Pirkis J, Hall J, Haas M. Partnerships for knowledge exchange in health services research, policy and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009; 14 :104–11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009; 14 :156–64. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward V, Smith S, Carruthers S, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge Brokering. Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action Leeds: University of Leeds. 2010. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004; 82 :581–629. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Manage J. 1984; 5 :171–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant R. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J. 1996; 17 :109–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Findings: Linking research and practice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2000.
• Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye Perry B. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007; 85 :729–68. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanney S, Gonzalez-Block M, Buxton M, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebener S, Khan A, Shademani R, Compernolle L, Beltran M, Lansang M, Lippman M. Knowledge mapping as a technique to support knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ. 2006; 84 :636–42. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grol R, Bosch M, Hulscher M, Eccles M, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007; 85 :93–138. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuruvilla S, Mays N. Reorienting health-research communication. Lancet. 2005; 366 :1416–18. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Data vs. Findings vs. Insights: The Differences Explained

April 23, 2023 2023-04-23

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

A shared vocabulary and understanding of data, findings, and insights will enable you to communicate where you are relative to where you need to be in your research analysis.

Data are simply a collection of data points which lack significance individually. As soon as researchers start to do any level of analysis on these data points, we have information. The type of information we have depends on the level of analysis completed. The first level of analysis yields findings, which are patterns among a specific set of data points that still lack critical context. The final level of analysis yields insights, which explain observed patterns and identify actionable opportunities. Insights are what researchers should strive to create.

In This Article:

Raw data lacks context, findings = what happened, not why, insights = opportunities to the business, how to mitigate bias in insights.

Definition: Data refers to an unanalyzed collection of observations about users that may include transcripts, notes, metrics, or survey output.

Data is comprised of single-observation points, otherwise known as data points. The data points are anything that gets captured — for example, user quotes or clicks in a user-testing session. There is no analysis or synthesis that happens at this stage, so no conclusions can be drawn.

Take, for instance, capturing data from a survey. The answers selected by participants would be the data points. If one question in the survey asked participants how likely they are to recommend the system to someone else ,  a single data point would represent the single response from a respondent for that question. The data would represent the collective responses from all respondents for all questions in the survey.

Data can be quantitative or qualitative.  User quotes or behaviors are qualitative data. But task time, success , analytics metrics , or responses to certain survey questions like the net- promoter–score (NPS) question above are quantitative.

Definition: Findings describe patterns in collected data or summaries across it. They lack consideration of background, past research, and organizational factors.

To come up with findings, researchers take the many distinct data points they collected and examine them for patterns. For   qualitative data , they rely on thematic-analysis techniques. Quantitative data is analyzed through statistics.

To extract findings, we look across everything captured, but we can look for patterns only across comparable things. In the survey example above, we could look at all the answers to the NPS question and find that the NPS score is 40, with a margin of error of 10. This is a summary of several data points, so it is a finding. However, there is no context that tells us details, such as whether this score is good and the reason behind this score. Thus, findings are not that useful by themselves.

Context is required to be able to interpret a finding. With findings alone, researchers are not able to determine why a pattern was observed or to make recommendations that are right for users and the business.

Definition: Insights are focused explanations of opportunities, based on other user research and business context.

While findings describe what is observed in the scope of a particular study or time frame of a live product, insights tie specific opportunities to specific user needs and they relate to valuable business objectives. Interpreting findings in context yields insights.

In the case of the NPS question above, consider these additional three pieces of context:

• This question was administered to users of a recently redesigned medical-appointment–booking site. The organization redesigned the website to decrease support call costs resulting from users who struggled to book appointments with specialist providers.
• Before the redesign, the NPS score was 35, with a margin of error of 15.
• Subsequent qualitative usability testing of the redesigned interface revealed that users struggled with it due to weak information scent and medical jargon .

Given this context, here is a potential insight:

Even though the NPS score increased, this difference was not statistically significant compared with the NPS for the older design.  (If you were to plot confidence intervals  for the two metrics, you would see that the one for the original NPS includes the one for the NPS of the redesign). Users struggled to understand the terminology used on the site and had a hard time identifying the correct specialist for their condition. The recommendation is to use plain language to align with users’ existent mental models.

This insight marries the finding around the NPS score with a usability finding that adds important context and highlights a clear opportunity connected to one of the organization’s goals.

Researchers should strategically use insights as a tool to connect their research to recommendations and opportunities. Insights are not meant to be prescriptive; rather, they narrow design possibilities, which can then be tested to find the best one. There are an infinitely many number of design possibilities for any problem, so some initial direction is highly beneficial for efficiency.

Given that the researcher designs the study, facilitates it, analyzes it, and interprets the data, there is inevitably some bias inherent to an insight. The threat posed by bias can be mitigated through the process of triangulation, which means relying on multiple sources of data, multiple approaches to analyzing the data, and multiple researchers doing the analysis, to reduce the chance that one particular researcher’s bias results in a faulty assessment.

Concerns around lack of scientific statistical significance and validity are common, but practically speaking, it is wise to make some recommendation that could have a positive business impact, rather than making no recommendation at all.

Data, findings, and insights are the language we use to communicate significantly different degrees of research analysis that your team as completed. For example, if you are currently working with findings, then you need to develop your analysis further to insights, because you can’t make decisions without understanding context.

Related Courses

Ux basic training.

Foundational concepts that everyone should know

Interaction

Design Thinking Essentials

Unearth user pain points to drive breakthrough design concepts

Design Tradeoffs and UX Decision-Making

Enhance your judgment and resolve tough design challenges

Related Topics

• Design Process Design Process

Learn More:

Please accept marketing cookies to view the embedded video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bn2euyKhJo

Data vs. Findings vs. Insights

Quantify the Business Impact of Your Design

Kim Flaherty · 5 min

Seeing Is Believing: Using Video Evidence When Presenting Research to Stakeholders

Megan Chan · 3 min

Using a CSD Matrix in Discovery

Anna Kaley · 3 min

Related Articles:

User Experience vs. Customer Experience: What’s The Difference?

How Practitioners Create Journey Maps: Typical Uses, Roles, and Methods

Kate Kaplan · 6 min

Sympathy vs. Empathy in UX

Sarah Gibbons · 7 min

Personas vs. Jobs-to-Be-Done

Page Laubheimer · 8 min

The Two UX Gulfs: Evaluation and Execution

Kathryn Whitenton · 7 min

UX Lessons I Wish I Learned in School

Hoa Loranger · 6 min

What is Research? – Definition, Objectives & Types of Research

Introduction: Research is a systematic and structured investigation that seeks to expand knowledge, uncover new insights, and provide evidence-based understanding in various fields. It is vital in advancing human understanding, addressing complex problems, and driving innovation. Research encompasses a wide range of methodologies, including empirical studies, experiments, surveys, and theoretical analyses, conducted by researchers across academic, scientific, and professional domains. New discoveries are made through research, theories are developed and tested, and practical solutions are generated. The impact of research is far-reaching, influencing advancements in technology, healthcare, social sciences, environmental conservation, and more. It drives progress, informs policy decisions, and shapes the future by providing a solid foundation of reliable and verified knowledge. The importance of research cannot be overstated, as it drives human knowledge forward and fosters societal development and improvement. Types of Research

What is Research?

The primary objective of the research is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by uncovering new insights, validating existing theories, or challenging prevailing assumptions. It is driven by the pursuit of truth, accuracy, and evidence-based understanding.

Research can take various forms, depending on the discipline and the nature of the inquiry. It can be empirical, involving the collection and analysis of data through experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. It can also be theoretical, involving the critical analysis of existing literature and concepts to develop new frameworks or models.

The research process is characterized by systematic and organized steps. It begins with identifying a research problem or topic of interest, followed by an extensive literature review to understand the existing knowledge and identify gaps. Research questions or hypotheses are formulated, and a research design is developed to guide data collection and analysis.

Data collection methods can vary widely, ranging from quantitative approaches such as surveys or experiments to qualitative approaches such as interviews or case studies. Researchers analyze the collected data using appropriate statistical or qualitative analysis techniques to draw meaningful conclusions.

One of the key aspects of research is its emphasis on objectivity and rigor. Researchers strive to minimize bias, ensure the reliability and validity of findings, and maintain ethical standards in their research practices.

The impact of research extends far beyond the academic realm. Research findings inform decision-making processes in various sectors, including healthcare, policy development, business strategies, environmental conservation, and social sciences. It drives technological advancements, fosters innovation, and provides the foundation for evidence-based practices.

Furthermore, research is an iterative process, with new studies building upon and refining existing knowledge. It is a collaborative endeavor, often involving interdisciplinary collaborations and the exchange of ideas among researchers worldwide.

Definitions of Research:

Research is a systematic and organized investigation conducted to expand knowledge, gain a deeper understanding, and generate new insights in a specific field. It involves rigorous and organized data collection, analysis, and interpretation to address research questions or hypotheses. The pursuit of new information drives research, the validation of existing theories, or the exploration of new perspectives. It employs various methodologies to gather and analyze data, including empirical studies, experiments, surveys, interviews, or theoretical analyses. The ultimate goal of the research is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, advance understanding, and inform decision-making processes across academic, scientific, and professional domains.

Kasi (2009) 1 defines “Research is, therefore, a method for investigating and collecting information aimed at the discovery of new facts or interpretation of existing information, to discover or revise facts, theories, and applications.”

Research is stated by Gina Wisker 1 as “Research is about asking and beginning to answer questions, seeking knowledge and understanding of the world and its processes, and testing assumptions and beliefs.”

Redman and Mory define research as a “systematized effort to gain new knowledge.” 2

Burns (1997) defines research as “a systematic investigation to find answers to a problem.” 2

“The word research is composed of two syllables, re and search. The dictionary defines the former as a prefix meaning again, anew, or over again and the latter as a verb meaning to examine closely and carefully, to test and try, or to probe. Together, they form a noun describing a careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge undertaken to establish facts or principles.” (Grinnell 1993) 2

Objectives of Research:

The research objectives can vary depending on the specific field of study, the nature of the research, and the researcher’s goals. However, some common purposes of the research include:

• Answer questions: Research aims to provide answers to specific questions or hypotheses. It seeks to investigate and uncover information, data, or insights about a particular topic or issue.
• Solve problems: Research is often conducted to address real-world issues or challenges. It aims to identify innovative solutions, strategies, or approaches that can help overcome obstacles and improve existing systems or practices.
• Generate new knowledge: Research endeavors to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by uncovering new information, theories, or perspectives. It involves exploring uncharted territory or expanding upon existing knowledge in various fields of study.
• Improve understanding: Research aims to deepen our understanding of complex phenomena, processes, or concepts. It seeks to clarify misconceptions, explore underlying mechanisms, or uncover relationships between variables, leading to a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the subject.
• Add value: Research brings value by providing practical or theoretical benefits. It can lead to technological advancements, policies or practices, enhanced decision-making processes, or the development of new products, services, or theories.

Types of Research:

C.R. Kothari, a renowned Indian researcher and author, has proposed several types of research in his book Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques . According to Kothari, research can be categorized into the following types:

• Descriptive Research: Descriptive research is a method of investigation that provides an accurate and comprehensive description of a specific phenomenon, situation, or population. It involves collecting data through various methods, such as surveys, interviews, or observations, and analyzing the data to identify patterns, characteristics, or trends. Descriptive research does not aim to establish causal relationships or manipulate variables but instead aims to answer questions about what is happening or the current state of the research subject. This type of research is valuable in generating a foundational understanding of a topic, informing decision-making processes, and providing a basis for further research in various fields of study.
• Analytical Research: Analytical research focuses on critically examining and interpreting existing data, information, or theories to gain deeper insights and understanding. It involves analyzing and evaluating data or literature to identify patterns, relationships, or underlying causes. Analytical research aims to go beyond descriptive findings and delves into the reasons and explanations behind observed phenomena. This type of research often involves rigorous statistical analysis, comparative studies, or theoretical frameworks to draw conclusions and make inferences. Analytical research is crucial in advancing knowledge, refining theories, and providing evidence-based insights that can inform decision-making and policy development in various fields of study.
• Applied Research: Applied research is a type of research that is conducted to address practical problems or improve existing practices. It focuses on directly applying knowledge and theories to real-world situations and aims to provide actionable solutions. Applied research often involves collaborating with stakeholders, such as industry professionals or policymakers, to ensure the research outcomes have practical relevance. This type of research emphasizes implementing and evaluating interventions, strategies, or technologies to solve specific issues. The results of applied research can potentially impact society, leading to advancements in technology, policy improvements, or enhanced practices in various domains, including healthcare, education, business, and engineering.
• Fundamental Research: Fundamental research, also known as basic research or pure research, is a type of inquiry that aims to expand knowledge and understanding in a particular field. It explores theoretical concepts, principles, and fundamental laws without immediate practical application. Fundamental research is driven by curiosity and the desire to explore new frontiers of knowledge. It often involves the formulation of hypotheses, experimentation, and rigorous data analysis. The fundamental research findings may not have immediate or direct practical implications. Still, they lay the groundwork for applied research and can lead to significant breakthroughs, innovations, and advancements in various scientific disciplines. Fundamental research is essential for pushing the boundaries of knowledge and fostering a deeper understanding of the world around us.
• Qualitative Research: Qualitative research is an exploratory approach to understanding individuals’ or groups’ meaning, context, and subjective experiences. It involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, or textual analysis, to gain deep insights into complex social phenomena. Qualitative research focuses on uncovering underlying motivations, beliefs, attitudes, and cultural influences that shape human behavior. It emphasizes the richness, depth, and complexity of human experiences and seeks to provide a detailed and holistic understanding of a research topic. Qualitative research methods allow for flexibility and adaptability, enabling researchers to capture nuances and explore emerging themes. This type of research is valuable in fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and education, where a deep understanding of human behavior and social processes is sought.
• Quantitative Research: Quantitative research systematically gathers and analyzes numerical data to uncover patterns, trends, and relationships. It involves collecting structured data through surveys, experiments, or observations and applying statistical techniques for data analysis. Quantitative research aims to quantify variables, measure phenomena, and draw objective conclusions based on statistical evidence. This type of research focuses on obtaining precise and measurable results, often using large sample sizes to increase the generalizability of findings. Quantitative research is prevalent in social sciences, economics, psychology, and market research, where numerical data and statistical analysis provide a rigorous and quantifiable approach to understanding and explaining phenomena.

Significance of Research:

The significance of research cannot be overstated, as it serves as the cornerstone of progress and development in various fields. Whether in science, technology, social sciences, or humanities, research is vital in advancing knowledge, addressing problems, and shaping society.

One of the primary significances of research is its ability to expand our understanding and knowledge base. Through rigorous investigation, research uncovers new information, theories, and insights that contribute to the existing body of knowledge. It allows us to delve deeper into complex phenomena, explore uncharted territories, and uncover hidden connections. This expansion of knowledge forms the basis for innovation, development, and the evolution of society.

Research also serves as a powerful tool for problem-solving. It enables us to identify and address pressing issues, whether they are in healthcare, education, economics, or any other field. By systematically examining problems, collecting and analyzing relevant data, and developing evidence-based solutions, research provides the means to overcome challenges and improve existing practices. It empowers us to make informed decisions, develop effective strategies, and allocate resources wisely.

Furthermore, research plays a critical role in informing decision-making processes. Policymakers, business leaders, and organizations rely on research findings to guide their choices, shape policies, and plan for the future. Research provides reliable and credible information, allowing decision-makers to navigate complex issues more confidently and accurately. It serves as a bridge between theory and practice, translating abstract concepts into tangible outcomes that benefit society.

Innovation and improvement are other significant outcomes of research. Research drives innovation by exploring new ideas, pushing boundaries, and challenging established norms. It leads to the developing of new technologies, products, and services that improve our quality of life. Research also fosters improvements in existing practices and processes by identifying inefficiencies, gaps, and areas for enhancement. Through research, we continuously strive to find better, more efficient ways of doing things.

Research has a profound impact on society as a whole. It addresses social issues, informs public policies, and promotes positive social change. Research provides evidence-based solutions that address societal challenges, from healthcare interventions to educational reforms. It influences public opinion, shapes cultural norms, and contributes to communities’ well-being and progress.

Moreover, research plays a crucial role in validating and challenging existing knowledge. It provides empirical evidence that supports or challenges established theories and concepts. Through rigorous scrutiny and critical analysis, research ensures that knowledge constantly evolves, grows, and adapts to new information. It encourages intellectual discourse, promotes healthy skepticism, and encourages a culture of lifelong learning.

References: 

• Kasi, P. (2009). Research: What, Why and How? AuthorHouse.
• Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques . New Age International.

Related Posts

What is citation, what is scholarly communication, literature review, patent: an overview, thesaurus construction and its role in indexing, what are bibliometrics.

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

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Careers in Qual

Quick answers, related terms.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper; the discussion clearly explains how your study advanced the reader's understanding of the research problem from where you left them at the end of your review of prior research.

Annesley, Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Peacock, Matthew. “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (December 2002): 479-497.

Importance of a Good Discussion

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it:

• Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation;
• Presents the underlying meaning of your research, notes possible implications in other areas of study, and explores possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research;
• Highlights the importance of your study and how it can contribute to understanding the research problem within the field of study;
• Presents how the findings from your study revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described; and,
• Engages the reader in thinking critically about issues based on an evidence-based interpretation of findings; it is not governed strictly by objective reporting of information.

Annesley Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Bitchener, John and Helen Basturkmen. “Perceptions of the Difficulties of Postgraduate L2 Thesis Students Writing the Discussion Section.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (January 2006): 4-18; Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive; be concise and make your points clearly
• Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research : Either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information. Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
• Deduction : A claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis : A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.

III.  Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when describing the research problem in your introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
• Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.g., in retrospect, had you included a particular question in a survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results and why they are important. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings presented in the results section.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study could not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why. VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [as opposed to offering suggestions in the conclusion of your paper]. Although your study can offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight hidden issues that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective, but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results, to support the significance of a finding, and/or to place a finding within a particular context. If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste time restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is important...," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.
• As noted, recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader. The description of findings [results section] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion section] should be distinct parts of your paper. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable. Using first person singular pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main points [i.e., I know you're telling me this--just tell me!].

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. "How to Write an Effective Discussion." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sauaia, A. et al. "The Anatomy of an Article: The Discussion Section: "How Does the Article I Read Today Change What I Will Recommend to my Patients Tomorrow?” The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 74 (June 2013): 1599-1602; Research Limitations & Future Research . Lund Research Ltd., 2012; Summary: Using it Wisely. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion. Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Over-Interpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. With this in mind, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you have gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

MacCoun, Robert J. "Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results." Annual Review of Psychology 49 (February 1998): 259-287; Ward, Paulet al, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Expertise . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself.

Azar, Beth. "Discussing Your Findings."  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006).

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among disadvantaged children in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design. If you feel compelled to speculate, do so in the form of describing possible implications or explaining possible impacts. Be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand your discussion of the results in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your effort to interpret the data in relation to the research problem.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Sep 27, 2024 1:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Briefing notes for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health and social care research

• Published: 05 April 2021
• Version: V 1.0 - April 2021
• 41 min read

Briefing note one: introduction

This guidance is for researchers new to public involvement in research and just starting to consider how best to involve members of the public in their work. It will also be of interest to researchers with experience of public involvement in research who are looking to update and refresh their knowledge and skills. And it will be helpful to others interested in public involvement in research, including involvement leads. This guidance explains the different ways that members of the public are involved in research. It will help you to plan, resource and support public involvement in research. You can find more involvement resources and guidance on Learning for Involvement .

Briefing note two: what is public involvement in research?

Definitions of involvement, engagement and participation.

Researchers and others use a variety of words to describe ways of interacting with the public. The terms involvement, engagement and participation are sometimes used interchangeably but the NIHR ascribes specific meanings to these terms as follows:

Involvement

NIHR defines public involvement in research as research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them.  It is an active partnership between patients, carers and members of the public with researchers that influences and shapes research. When using the term ‘public’ we include patients, potential patients, carers and people who use health and social care services as well as people from specific communities and from organisations that represent people who use services. Also included are people with lived experience of one or more health conditions, whether they’re current patients or not. Here are examples of how members of the public might get involved in research:

• as  joint grant holders or co-applicants on a research project
• identifying  research priorities
• as members of a project advisory or steering group
• commenting on and developing patient information leaflets or other research materials
• undertaking interviews with research participants
• carrying out research as user and/or carer researchers

Public involvement as defined here is also sometimes referred to as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). More information about approaches to public involvement can be found in section seven.

Where information and knowledge about research is provided and disseminated. Examples of engagement are:

• science festivals open to the public with debates and discussions on research open days at a research centre where members of the public are invited to find out about research raising
• awareness of research through media such as television programmes, newspapers and social media
• dissemination to research participants, colleagues or members of the public on the findings of a study.

Find out more about engagement through the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement.

Participation

• Where people take part in a research study. Examples of participation are:
• people being recruited to a clinical trial or other research study(eg to test the efficacy of a new treatment)
• completing a questionnaire or participating in a focus group as part of a research study

Find out more about how members of the public participate in NIHR research on Be Part of Research. These different activities – involvement, engagement and participation – are often linked and, although they are distinct, they can complement each other.

Briefing note three: why involve members of the public in research?

Public involvement can improve the quality and relevance of research, as well as serving the broader democratic principles of citizenship, accountability and transparency. For these reasons, public involvement is increasingly an expectation if not a requirement of research funders. Research teams do not always clearly articulate their rationale for public involvement. A clear rationale helps researchers be more specific about who they want to involve, and in what ways.

Democratic principles

People who are affected by research have a right to have a say in it. Public involvement in research is an intrinsic part of citizenship, public accountability and transparency. It can also help empower people who use health and social care services, by providing the opportunity to influence research that is relevant to them.

Providing a different perspective

Members of the public might have personal knowledge and experience relevant to your research topic or be able to provide a more general societal perspective.  They might have lived experience of one or more health conditions or of using services. Members of the public will also bring their experiences of being part of specific communities or groups.

Improving the quality of the research

Involving members of the public helps ensure that research focuses on outcomes that are important to the public.  It is also a good way of tailoring your research to the needs of specific communities.  For example, if you are seeking research participants from a particular community, involving members of that community in shaping the study design can help improve recruitment and retention of participants by ensuring that your ways of communicating and your research methods are sensitive to the needs, customs and circumstances of the community.

Making the research more relevant

Public involvement can make research more relevant for example through:

• identifying a wider set of research topics than would have been generated just by  academics and health or social care professionals suggesting ideas for new research
• ensuring research is focused on what matters to people - for example by prioritising symptoms that are of importance to patients with a particular condition
• helping to reshape and clarify the research

Interests of research funders and research organisations

Several funding bodies, as well as research ethics committees, ask grant applicants about their plans for public involvement with an expectation that if they are not involving members of the public in the research then they need to have clear reasons for this and be able to explain them. For example, NIHR has a standard application form used by all research programmes. One of the sections on the form asks applicants to describe how they have involved the public in the design and planning of their study as well as their plans for further involvement throughout the research, including plans for evaluating impact. Applicants are also asked to provide details of the budget they have allocated for public involvement in their research. Responses to these questions will be considered by the reviewers, research panels and boards (which increasingly include members of the public) and will influence funding decisions.

The Research Ethics Service will ask about the plans for public involvement in your research if you apply for ethical approval, and it will be part of their assessment process. They expect the involvement of the public in research, as it can help ensure that research planned is ethical, relevant and acceptable from a public perspective. 

Briefing note four: why members of the public get involved in research

Members of the public get involved in research for a variety of personal and social reasons. For some, these are linked to personal experiences of health or social care services and a desire to bring about change in the quality of care or to improve treatments either for themselves or for others with a similar condition. For others it might be a way to have a ‘voice’ and influence the processes that affect people’s lives. Some people have had difficult experiences and appreciate being able to do something positive with that experience. Others have had very good experiences, and see their involvement as an opportunity to ‘give something back’. Other people get involved to ensure the voice of their community/communities are represented in research. Well planned and resourced involvement in research can also be valuable to those involved by increasing their confidence and knowledge and helping them to develop new skills. healthtalk.org has a series of interesting videos where various members of the public talk about their reasons for getting involved in research, including helping others and medical science and also for personal benefits .

Briefing note five: how to involve members of the public in research

Uk standards for public involvement.

A good place to start when planning how to involve members of the public in research is the UK Standards for Public Involvement . Developed over three years by a UK-wide partnership , the Standards are a description of what good public involvement looks like. They encourage approaches and behaviours that are the hallmark of good public involvement such as flexibility, sharing and learning, and mutual respect . The Standards are for everyone doing health or social care research, and provide guidance and reassurance for practitioners working towards achieving their own best practice. The six Standards are:

• inclusive opportunities – offer public involvement opportunities that are accessible and that reach people and groups according to research needs
• working together – work together in a way that values all contributions, and that builds and sustains mutually respectful and productive relationships
• support and learning – offer and promote support and learning opportunities that build confidence and skills for public involvement in research
• governance – involve the public in research management, regulation, leadership and decision making.
• communication – use plain language for well-timed and relevant communications, as part of involvement plans and activities
• impact – Seek improvement by identifying and sharing the difference that public involvement makes to research

Below we provide more information on each Standard. The Standards were tested by over 40 individuals, groups and organisations during a year-long pilot programme, and you can find out more about these ‘test bed’ projects and how they went about implementing the UK Standards for Public Involvement in the Implementation Stories report .

Inclusive opportunities

Offer public involvement opportunities that are accessible and that reach people and groups according to research needs. Research is to be informed by a diversity of public experience and insight, so that it leads to treatments and services which reflect these needs. The questions below may help you reflect on and decide if you meet the Standard:

• are people affected by and interested in the research involved from the earliest stages?
• have barriers to involvement, such as payment for time or accessible locations for meetings been identified and addressed?
• how is information about opportunities shared, and does it appeal to different communities?
• are there fair and transparent processes for involving the public in research, and do they reflect equality and diversity duties?
• is there choice and flexibility in opportunities offered to the public?

The NIHR is committed to actively and openly supporting and promoting equality, diversity and inclusion, and this also applies to how we do public involvement . As such, this Standard is crucial for NIHR, and the research we fund.

The NIHR’s Being Inclusive in Public Involvement in Health Research guidance provides key tips for researchers and practitioners:

• check your power - try to understand power relationships within your context and your role, and how to  promote inclusion
• value the people you work with - people will bring different perspectives and opinions
• use language carefully - avoid jargon, write in plain English and be considerate
• consider inclusive locations - decide together on the best places for meetings
• listen and seek agreement
• get from A to B, perhaps via Z - be flexible
• collaborate - work with community organisations
• invest in the workplace
• commit to a relationship
• evidence, evaluate, share and reflect
• act small, think big - support people, researchers and members of the public to develop confidence, learning and skills

Find out more about EDI and accessibility:

• Tips for researchers involving unpaid carers in health and care research
• Being Inclusive in Public Involvement in Health Research guidance
• Different experiences: a framework for considering who might be involved in research guidance
• government guidelines on writing about ethnicity
• the East Midlands Academic Health Science Network PPI webpages have a number of top tips leaflets for engaging with various communities
• NIHR Plain English Summaries guidance

Working together

Work together in a way that values all contributions, and that builds and sustains mutually respectful and productive relationships. Public involvement in research is better when people work together towards a common purpose, and different perspectives are respected. The questions below may help you reflect on and decide if you meet the Standard:

• has the purpose of public involvement been jointly defined and recorded? 
• have the practical requirements and arrangements for working together been addressed?
• have all the potential different ways of working together been explored, and have these plans and activities been developed together?
• is there a shared understanding of roles, responsibilities and expectations of public involvement?
• have individuals’ influence, ideas and contributions been recognised and addressed?

Support and learning

We offer and promote support and learning that builds confidence and skills for public involvement in research. We seek to remove practical and social barriers that stop members of the public and research professionals from making the most of public involvement in research. The questions below may help you reflect on and decide if you meet the Standard:

• is there a range of support to address identified needs?
• have specific resources been designated to support learning and development opportunities for both the public, researchers, and staff?
• do the public know where to go for information and support about public involvement?
• is there a culture of learning- by- doing, building on and sharing that learning for researchers, staff and the public?

Different types of training might be:

• sharing knowledge and experiences with colleagues and peers ‘on the job’ training
• attending training sessions or courses

Support might take the form of:

• support from other team members
• a mentor with similar experience
• team meetings or one-to-one meetings with line managers
• IT support for remote working
• informal or formal mechanisms of peer support

Find out more about guidance, training and support on Learning for Involvement .

Involve the public in research management, regulation, leadership and decision making. Public involvement in research governance can help research be more transparent and gain public trust. The questions below may help you reflect on and decide if you meet the Standard:

• are public voices heard, valued and respected in decision making?
• are public involvement plans in place that are regularly monitored, reviewed and reported on?
• is there visible and accountable responsibility for public involvement throughout the organisation?
• are realistic resources (including money, staff, time) allocated for public involvement?
• is the privacy of personal information protected by collecting and using it in a suitable way?

Communications

Use plain language for well-timed and relevant communications, as part of involvement plans and activities. Communicate with a wider audience about public involvement and research, using a broad range of approaches that are accessible and appealing. The questions below may help you reflect on and decide if you meet the Standard:

• has a communications plan been developed for involvement activities?
• are the needs of different people being met through inclusive and flexible communication methods?
• are processes in place to offer, gather, act on and share feedback with the public?
• are you sharing your public involvement learning and achievements, good and bad?

Be clear with the people you want to involve. It is important that both you, as a researcher, and the people you involve have a shared and clear understanding of what they are being invited to do. Explain why you are asking people to get involved, and agree the aims of the research. It can be helpful to develop a role description and/or terms of reference so people know what is expected of them, and what they can expect from you.

Seek improvement by identifying and sharing the difference that public involvement makes to research. Understand the changes, benefits and learning gained from the insights and experiences of patients, carers and the public. The questions below may help you reflect on and decide if you meet the Standard:

• are the public involved in deciding what the assessment of impact should focus on, and the approach to take?
• is it clear what information you will collect to help assess impact, including who has been involved and how?
• are there processes in place to help reflect on public involvement?
• is there a commitment to learn from the public involvement experience and, where possible, to act on this learning?

Resource public involvement in research

To achieve good quality public involvement, as set out by the UK Public Involvement Standards, it is crucial to consider how to resource public involvement both in terms of budget and the additional time required to involve the public in your research. Some research funders, such as NIHR, will actively encourage and expect public involvement to be adequately costed in research proposals. It can be challenging to obtain funding for public involvement later if it has not been built into your research grant application. Costs will differ depending on how you are involving people in your research and who you are involving. You can find in-depth information on budgeting for involvement in the NIHR’s Payment Guidance for researchers and professionals .

Do I need ethical approval for public involvement?

Ethical approval is not needed where people are involved in planning or advising on research, for example as a co-applicant on a research grant, a member of an advisory group or in developing a questionnaire.  For more information, the following resources are recommended: Qualitative research and patient and public involvement in health and social care research: What are the key differences?

Clarify your organisational responsibilities

It is important that you liaise well in advance with the relevant departments within your organisation such as finance and human resources (HR). Explain how you plan to involve members of the public in your research. This will ensure that you are aware and informed of local arrangements for involving members of the public and any issues that finance or HR may raise about the proposed arrangements. If there are any concerns raised by these departments you will have time to address them early on. Examples of issues you might need to consider are:

• payment and expenses policies
• methods for paying people (including tax and national insurance deductions)
• confidentiality agreements –(where these apply,  all members of the research group should be asked to sign , not just the members of the public
• health and safety
• honorary contracts
• Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks

We recommend that you:

• have a lead for public involvement in your team so there is a point of contact for all involved
• talk to others within your organisation who have involved people in their research
• make sure that people involved know that they can stop being involved at any time
• consider the emotional support you might need to offer people, if the research is sensitive or they find some of the information distressing, and where to access this support
• if asking your own patients or their  carers to work with you on a study consider if this is appropriate and how this might affect your relationship with them
• where appropriate, discuss in advance what will happen should people become ill for periods of the research discuss in advance with the people you have involved whether and in what ways they might want to stay involved after the project

Briefing note six: who should I involve and how do I find people to involve?

Who should i involve.

In deciding who best to involve it is important to think about the knowledge and perspectives that you are looking for from members of the public, and what support you are able to give to people who you plan to involve. You might also want to consider involving carers in your research, as they provide a unique and valuable perspective. We have produced some tips to help you involve unpaid carers in your research project . Key points to consider when deciding who might be involved in research,  are set out in the guidance note: Different Experiences: A framework for considering who might be involved in research guidance and include the following:

• be clear about the purpose of involving people in research and what experiences and knowledge they can provide
• include a diversity of relevant views and perspectives
• take a common sense approach to who you involve
• people can wear several hats, and their contributions may be broader because of this range of experiences
• the type of lived experience required will vary depending on the focus of the research

For most studies it is not appropriate for people involved in the research also to be participants in the research as that can compromise both the researcher and the person involved. The possible exceptions to this may include some participatory/action research studies where the participants of the research may also be acting as co-researchers, influencing the shape of the study as it progresses.

Involve more than one person

Involving more than one person allows you to include different people at different stages of the research, and provides them more choices in  how they are involved. It will also help you to:

• increase the breadth of experience and skills brought to the project
• provide an opportunity for those involved to support and encourage each other
• make the overall public presence more resilient to individual absences resulting from illness or clashing commitments Include a diversity of relevant views and perspectives

Consider the broad and different views and experiences you will need to include in your research. Try to ensure that you have a variety of perspectives so you get different viewpoints and allow time for those who have the skills you require for the project to network with others. You can read the Being Inclusive in Public Involvement in Health Research guidance for further information, and refer to the ‘inclusive opportunities’ Standard for public involvement .

How do I find people to involve?

Once you have considered who you would like to involve, you then need to think about how to make contact with them. Speak with colleagues and members of the public and ask for their views on how to find the people you want to involve. Allow time to make contact with organisations and individuals as finding people will nearly always take longer than you think.  Rather than inviting people in to talk to you, go out and engage with communities or groups where they already meet, whether that be in physical spaces or online forums. Others have contacted people by:

for specific communities, getting in touch with relevant community groups, community and faith leaders, or other individuals who can help you engage with specific groups of people

• asking community members or patients about people who might be interested in getting involved
• advertising in GP surgeries, outpatient departments, local newspapers and on the radio
• talking to local or national patient support groups and voluntary organisations
• searching online for relevant organisations
• using social media such as Facebook or Twitter
• talking to other health and social care professionals such as community development workers, social workers, health visitors, GP practice managers
• contacting the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) Officer based at your local NHS Trust
• putting details of the opportunity for people to get involved on the People in Research website so interested members of the public can make contact

Spend time developing networks and building relationships. This might involve visiting organisations to hear about what they do and talking to them about your research. Many researchers develop long term relationships with organisations and individuals who continue for many years past the involvement in the first research project. Be aware that some people or organisations might choose not to get involved in your work. This might be for a variety of reasons but it might be because their aims do not match yours, they do not have the time, or because the practical costs of either getting involved or finding somebody to get involved in your work is too great. Some organisations charge when they are asked to find people to get involved in research activities.   Find out more about how to find people to involve:

• watch this Youtube video from Caroline Barker, from the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, on Reaching new public members in a virtual world
• People in Research is a national platform to help members of the public find opportunities to get involved in research and for research organisations and researchers to advertise involvement opportunities
• Vocal creates opportunities for people to find out about, and have a voice in, health research in Greater Manchester
• Patient has a comprehensive list of national and local support groups and organisations

Briefing note seven: approaches to public involvement in research

We use the terms consultation, collaboration, co-production and user-controlled describe different broad approaches to involving people in research, associated with progressively increasing levels of power and influence for members of the public. In practice, research projects can include a combination of these four and boundaries between them are not clear cut. Moreover, each approach encompasses a range of specific methods for involving people. For example, you might work with one or two service users or carers as collaborators throughout a research project, as well as consulting with a wider group of service users on a specific aspect of the study, while some members of the public might lead on one stage of the research. How you involve people will depend on the nature of your research, as well as the different activities people decide they would like to get involved in. If it is the first time that you have involved people in research consider where public involvement will be most effective in your research. This might be in a relatively modest way at first, perhaps in just one activity or at one stage of the project. Build on the skills and experience you develop in future projects

Consultation

Consultation is when you ask members of the public for their views and use these views to inform your decision making. Consultation can be about any aspect of the research process – from identifying topics for research through to thinking about the implications of research findings. You might, for example, hold one-off meetings to ask people’s views on the importance of a study and areas that it is important to measure within the study. Research funders may consult members of the public by asking for their views on research grant applications. If this is the first time you have involved people in your research, it can be a good starting point. It can also be a way of getting the views of a larger group of people. However, think carefully about what you are asking and what you will do with the information. Be clear about these aims with the people you involve. You might find that people are frustrated at being asked for their views without a commitment from you that you will act on them. There is a danger of ‘consultation fatigue’ for individuals and organisations who have been consulted before and think that their views have been ignored. If you decide to consult people on your research we recommend that you:

• give them enough time to respond
• feedback on the actions you have taken as a result of the consultation
• ask if they would like to hear about the findings of the research

Benefits of consultation:

• it enables you to find out people’s views
• it can be useful when exploring sensitive and difficult issues
• you can get a wide range of views
• you can involve people in discussion and debate

Challenges of consultation:

• you might not get the broad views you hope for
• people might have previous bad experiences of consultation where their views were not listened to
• as the consultation is framed by your own concerns and questions, you might not get the level of insight from consultees that could emerge in
• a more two-way process
• you might require an experienced facilitator

Working more closely with members of the public, returning to ask them for further information, and developing an ongoing relationship with them, will take you towards collaboration.

Collaboration

Collaboration involves an ongoing partnership between you and the members of the public you are working with, where decisions about the research are shared. For example, members of the public might collaborate with the researchers on developing the research grant application, be members of the study advisory group and collaborate with researchers to disseminate the results of a research project. This is a broad approach that can be used in a wide range of different research activities and at many different stages of the research project. Collaboration requires commitment, openness and flexibility and it is important to plan and prepare adequately (see briefing note five on planning and preparation). Benefits of collaboration:

• helps to ensure research remains focused and relevant
• skills and perspectives of the public and the researchers can complement one another
• helps to ensure the research is ethical
• can help with recruitment and informed consent

Challenges to collaboration:

• time-consuming and involves additional cost
• researchers and the public may require training or support
• researchers need to be flexible and willing to share the control of the research

Co-production

Co-producing a research project is an approach in which researchers, practitioners and the public work together, sharing power and responsibility from the start to the end of the project, including the generation of knowledge. The assumption is that those for whom the  research is most relevant  are best placed to design and deliver it in partnership with the professionals, and have skills, knowledge and experience of equal importance. There is an overlap with the collaboration approach but what defines co-production is the values and principles that underpin it, rather than any specific tools or techniques. Indeed, there is no single formula or method for co-production and such an approach would be counter to the innovation and flexibility that is implicit in co-produced research. Rather, co-production requires that relationships are valued and nurtured, that efforts are made to redress power differentials, and that people are supported and enabled to realise their potential in carrying out their roles and responsibilities in the project. Co-producing research can include partnerships between academia and organisations representing the public as well as individual public members working with organisations, for example universities, which undertake research. The NIHR’s Guidance on co-producing a research project describes key principles and features of co-production. These are summarised below: Key principles:

• sharing of power – the research is jointly owned and people work together to achieve a joint understanding.
• including all perspectives and skills – making sure the research team includes all those who can make a contribution.
• respecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research – everyone is of equal importance.
• reciprocity – everybody benefits from working together.
• building and maintaining relationships – an emphasis on relationships is key to sharing power

Key features:

• establishing ground rules
• continuing dialogue
• joint ownership of key decisions
• a commitment to relationship building
• opportunities for personal growth and development
• flexibility
• continuous reflection
• valuing and evaluating the impact of co-producing research

The NIHR’s Guidance on co-producing a research project also presents some challenges that need to be addressed to enable more opportunities for co-producing research. These challenges touch on the topics of power (and power sharing), flexibility in research approaches and practices, the need for more guidance on co-production, and how to assess and evaluate co-produced research. Find out more about co-production:

• NIHR Guidance on co-producing a research project
• NIHR Co-Production in Action (Number One)
• NIHR Co-Production in Action (Number Two)
• NIHR Co-Production in Action (Number Three)
• BMJ: ‘Co-production of knowledge: the future’ Collection of articles (2021)
• the NIHR Research Design Service South East have produced a  podcast series on co-production
• the Co-Production Collective is a community of patients, carers, researchers, practitioners, students and anyone else who is interested in co-production

User controlled research

User controlled research is research that is actively controlled, directed and managed by service users and their service user organisations. Service users decide on the issues and questions to be looked at, as well as the way the research is designed, planned, written up and disseminated. The service users will run the research advisory or steering group and may also decide to carry out the research. Some service users make no distinction between the terms user controlled and user led, others feel that user led has a different, vaguer meaning. They see user led research as research which is meant to be led and shaped by service users but is not necessarily controlled or undertaken by them. Control in user led research in this case will rest with some other group of non-service users who also have an interest in the research, such as the commissioners of the research, the researchers or people who provide services. Examples of user-controlled research in action have highlighted several key reasons why user-controlled research is important for service users:

• a commitment to changing or improving the lives of their community of service users
• frustration with traditional research and services which exclude them
• frustration with mainstream research in failing to capture their needs or to research things they feel are important

As a researcher, you might get involved in user controlled research in several ways such as:

• training or supporting a group of service users who are undertaking their own research
• supporting user controlled research in a specific part of the research
• a user controlled organisation might commission you to carry out research under their direction

Organising and hosting meetings

Regardless of the approach you take, involving members of the public is likely to entail organising and hosting meetings. How you do this can make a huge difference to how people feel about the research and how much they are able and want to get involved in your work. Holding a meeting is only one of the ways to involve people and you may decide that this is not the best approach for your research. If you do choose meetings, you need to consider whether face-to-face, online, or a combination of the two work best for your research project, and your public contributors.

Planning for meetings: face-to-face

• explore opportunities for meeting people in their own environment, such as by attending a regular meeting of an organisation or group consider venues that are on neutral ground – venues such as hospitals or local authority departments might be associated with difficult experiences
• those who are working, have young children or who are carers might need to meet outside office hours
• make sure that there is parking and public transport nearby
• it is often better to plan for a mid-morning or early afternoon start to the meeting – this makes it easier for people if they have to travel some distance to the meeting or if they need additional time in the mornings because of their disability or health condition
• in some situations, you might need to offer overnight accommodation, in which case check if they have any special requirements for an overnight stay
• make sure meeting places, hotels and facilities are accessible to all those attending, for example if you are inviting a wheelchair user to join your committee, meet in an accessible meeting room with parking nearby and fully accessible facilities
• where possible, visit the venue in person in advance of the meeting, and ask to be shown around to check its suitability and access to all rooms, dining area, disabled toilets and the stage speaker area (if required)
• ask people if they have any special dietary requirements and let them know what refreshments you will be providing
• be mindful of practical matters such as microphones and hearing loops for people with hearing impairments or large print for people with visual impairments
• think about whether you will need interpreters for people from different ethnic groups or for sign language
• provide clear information about the meeting, timings and directions for getting to the venue well in advance and in a relevant format
• ask people if they require information posted to them or if they would like to receive it by email
• plan and prepare a budget for your meeting
• consider developing terms of reference and/or ground rules for the meeting so that those attending know why the meeting is being held and the responsibilities of those attending

Planning for meetings: online

The NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR) has developed useful guidance on how to hold a PPI meeting using virtual tools , which details these key tips and tricks:

• keep it simple - use easy software and tools
• send documents in advance
• don’t chair and make minutes simultaneously
• choose appropriate software - SPCR provide specific tips for Microsoft Teams and Zoom
• promote the opportunity widely - virtual meetings  give  you the opportunity to involve people not usually involved in research
• adjust the agenda accordingly - take into consideration more frequent breaks
• have a backup plan if technology fails
• provide support before and during the meeting

There is a wide range of guidance on good practice for online meetings for involvement. Here are some of the ones we think might be most useful:

• here is an overview of the best video conferencing apps for accessibility
• National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement Online Engagement: a guide for creating and running virtual meetings and events
• a blog by University College London on Engagement in a time of social distancing , which also includes further resources and reading
• Engaging at a distance guidance (.PDF) from Being Human, which has a useful online event checklist
• there are particular considerations to keep in mind when hosting online meetings which will be accessed by disabled people. Find out more about how to make your virtual meetings and events accessible to the disability community and how to run accessible online meetings for disabled people working and studying from home.

Conducting the meetings (face-to-face and online)

• brief the Chair and other committee members to ensure that the members of the public are welcomed and included during the meeting. You can find out more about chairing a meeting by reading the  TwoCan Associates guidance for chairs (.PDF)
• offer a pre-meeting or telephone discussion for members of the public to discuss the agenda and papers
• for face-to-face meetings, provide name badges in a large clear text font
• ask people to introduce themselves at the beginning of the meeting
• agree ground rules for how you will conduct a meeting so everybody has an equal opportunity to contribute
• members including members of the public agree to these rules of mutual respect
• make sure that everybody has an equal voice on the group
• encourage the use of clear language, explain jargon and acronyms
• ask the Chair to regularly check that people understand the language used and the content of the meeting
• plan for frequent breaks as people might need to take medication or find sitting for long periods difficult
• for face-to-face meetings, see if it is possible to have a spare room to allocate as a quiet room for those who might need to take some time out of the meeting
• consider different ways of conducting meetings, such as time in small group sessions (breakout rooms online) as well meetings in a larger
• group to allow people the opportunity to contribute in different ways
• create a mentor or buddy system to support the members of the public you are involving on an ongoing basis

After the meeting (face-to-face and online)

• share a write up of the event, including any recommendations or outcomes
• provide feedback on any recommendations or outcomes
• allow sufficient time between meetings for people to consult with their peers or their organisations if they wish to do so
• ask for feedback from members of the public involved in the meeting and if they have any suggestions for improvement for future meetings

Briefing note eight: ways that people can be involved in the different stages of the research cycle

Members of the public are getting involved in a whole range of research activities. These include helping to develop the research question, applying for funding and ethical approval, sitting on advisory groups, carrying out the research and disseminating the research findings. This section considers the different ways members of the public can get involved in the stages of the research cycle. When reading through this section, keep in mind the six UK Standards for Public Involvement : inclusive opportunities; working together; support and learning; governance; communications; impact.

Identifying and prioritising research

Involving the public in helping to identify and prioritise research questions is a powerful way of ensuring that your research priorities are aligned with those of people who have a personal stake in the subject, for example if they have the condition you are researching or use relevant services. Depending on the type of funding call you are applying for, topics might have already been decided by the research funder or commissioner. Members of the public might have been involved in the identification and prioritisation of the topics by the research funding organisation. People with lived experience -  and the organisations that represent - researchers and health and care practitioners will all have distinct, though often overlapping research priorities.  By working together you can develop a shared agenda. An active partnership will enable you to learn from each other and agree on the research questions together, and the final topic will be a shared decision between the group. Consider recording how the research questions were developed and the different influences on the questions at the beginning of the project. Researchers and research organisations use a range of different ways to work with the public to identify and prioritise research. These include:

• discussions with existing reference groups and networks
• inviting people to an event or holding a workshop or focus group
• attending meetings held by service user groups
• peer group interviews
• surveys and interviews
• asking support organisations about the feedback they get from people who use services
• using an independent facilitator (this reduces the risk of researchers influencing the agenda too much)

Sometimes it is difficult for people who are unfamiliar with research to identify research questions. It may help to first discuss problems that people experience living with their condition/s, or using treatments or services, before discussing how these might be turned into research questions.

Find out if others have worked with members of the public to identify research topics

In several areas of research including cancer, arthritis and mental health the research topics and priorities of people with these conditions have been explored and published. Find out if research has been carried out to identify the topics most relevant to patients or service users in your area of work to enable you to identify relevant research topics. The James Lind Alliance , funded by the NIHR, facilitates Priority Setting Partnerships. These partnerships bring patients, carers and health and care practitioners together to identify and prioritise the care and treatment uncertainties which they agree are the most important for research. It’s not too late to involve people if you have already identified a research topic – you can still involve the public by asking them if the topic is relevant to them. Most researchers or research organisations have a range of topics or areas that they would like to research. Members of the public can work with individual researchers, research teams or organisations to decide which topics to focus on first. Listen, respond and talk through with them how their ideas can be included in your research questions.

Commissioning research

Many funding organisations now involve members of the public in commissioning research. For example the NIHR recruits and supports patients, carers and members of the public to give feedback on health and social care research funding applications . This gives a broader perspective to the review process, by considering the issues that are important from a public and patient perspective. Involvement in commissioning can be done in a variety of ways, including:

• involving members of the public in reviewing research proposals
• having members of the public on research commissioning panels or boards
• involvement in the monitoring process of research, once funded
• user controlled organisations commissioning research

Designing and managing research

Involving members of the public in the design of research helps to ensure that the research is relevant to the needs of people and that the research questions and outcomes are clear. It strengthens the ethical basis of the research, and can help improve the recruitment and retention of volunteer participants in the study. Public involvement in the design stage of the research can:

• demonstrate to funders and commissioners that the topic is important and relevant to the end users of research and that they have been
• involved in the design of the research
• identify aspects of the research that raise ethical considerations and provide a broader set of perspectives  on solutions
• suggest ways that people can be meaningfully involved in the various stages of the research
• suggest ways to ensure that diversity and inclusion are addressed in the research, for example in ensuring that volunteers can be recruited
• from certain ethnic communities
• ensure that your recruitment process is practical and feasible
• help you to develop a budget for public involvement in your research and ensure that the time and the support needed for public involvement
• is built in to the research from the beginning
• help develop written information in user friendly and plain language, which is appropriately targeted at specific communities

Be clear with the people you are involving about the fact that the funding process can be lengthy and that the research may not get funded.

Funding to support public involvement in your research grant application

It can be challenging to obtain funding to support public involvement prior to your grant application being successful. Speak to your organisation or university to see if they have any funding for public involvement. It’s not too late to involve people if you have already developed your research grant application. You can still involve members of the public by:

• asking people to review your proposal and give written comments on any potential difficulties in your design
• taking your proposal to a local public involvement group or panel and ask for their views – your university or NHS Trust might already have a
• group or panel of people who are willing to do this
• thinking about how best to involve people at other stages of the research if your application is successful

Managing research

One of the main ways that members of the public get involved in managing research is through membership of a study steering group or management committee. Increasingly members of the public are taking a more active role in research as collaborators or in some cases as the principal investigators in studies. In these circumstances they will often be employed as a member of the research team. Involving members of the public in managing research can help to ensure that:

• a public and societal perspective is maintained throughout an individual project or a programme of work
• public involvement in the project is properly budgeted and funded
• effective support is developed for members of the public involved in the study
• advice is available on improving the recruitment of participants to the study
• there is involvement in the selection process of staff and researchers for the study – particularly helpful if they are going to be working with research participants

Find out more about public involvement in managing your research on the NIHR website . 

Undertaking the research

Members of the public can get involved in a variety of roles in carrying out the research such as:

• gathering and reviewing documentary evidence
• undertaking library-based research
• carrying out interviews
• running focus groups
• analysing and interpreting the results of research

Gathering and reviewing documentary evidence and undertaking library-based research

Members of the public can help look at different types of evidence and interpret the literature from a public perspective. 

Interviewing and running focus groups

If you are going to involve members of the public as peer interviewers (people who have direct experience of the topic being researched and who carry out interviews with other members of the public) or in running focus groups, we suggest you consider:

• who the ‘peers’ are for your research project, for example their gender, age, ethnicity or experience of using a particular service
• training and support required to carry out the role.

Analysing and interpreting the results of research

Involving members of the public in analysing and interpreting research findings can:

• help to identify themes that researchers might miss
• help check the validity of the conclusions from a public perspective
• highlight findings that are more relevant to the public

You might involve the members of the public who have been working with you on the research project to analyse and interpret the research findings. Alternatively you could hold a small event to find out the views of a wider audience.

Disseminating research

Members of the public involved in your research will want to ensure that the findings are widely disseminated so they can influence and change practice for the better. It has been found that involving people at the dissemination stage is more successful if they have also  been involved at the earlier stages of the research as they then benefit from a sense of ownership of the research and an understanding of the context and background. This means they will be more likely to disseminate the results to their networks, to help summarise the research findings in clear user-friendly language and ensure that the information is accessible to a public audience.

To encourage and support public involvement in dissemination:

• develop progress reports or newsletters to keep people informed throughout the project, reporting both negative and positive results
• feedback results to all those you consulted and collaborated with as well as participants
• work with members of the public to develop your dissemination plans – they will often have access to groups and forums that researchers are not aware of
• involve people in presenting at conferences, speaking to patients, support groups and service providers
• ask members of the public involved in your research to be co-authors in journal and newsletter articles
• acknowledge the contribution members of the public made to the research when writing journal articles and reports

Remember to include funding for public involvement in disseminating the findings in your grant application, and consider if you will need to allocate funding for developing and printing summaries and for postage. It’s not too late – if you have reached the stage of disseminating your research, there are still options open to you for involving people:

• discuss your research findings with members of the public and listen to their views
• ask for their ideas on how best to report your findings to others through networks, newsletters and different media and formats
• involve people in working with you to ensure that the information is clear and easy to understand for different audiences
• reflect on and plan how you will involve people earlier in your next project

Implementing research

Public involvement in your research can influence, support and add strength to the way your research is taken into practice. Public involvement in research often provides a route to effecting change and improvement in aspects of health and care practice that are of particular concern to people. Members of the public involved in research are often passionate to ensure that action happens as a result of the research and might be able to establish influential relationships with key agencies and policy makers.

Evaluating impact

From the beginning of your project think how you are going to monitor and evaluate public involvement and its impact throughout the project. Working with the people you involve, document and write up an evaluation of the public involvement in your research recording short and long term impacts. This will help you for future projects and provide valuable knowledge for other researchers looking to involve members of the public in their work. Help to build the evidence base and let others know about what worked well and what didn’t and the impact of public involvement in your research by:

• including the information in your research reports
• publishing information on the impact in journal articles

Find out more about reporting evaluating impact of public involvement in your study:

• PiiAF – The Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework and Guidance (Popay, Collins et al 2013)
• What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study (Telford et al 2004)
• PIRICOM study: a systematic review (.PDF) (Brett et al 2010)
• Service user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research: A review of evidence and practice (Smith et al 2008)

Briefing note nine: what to do when things go wrong

In this guidance we have provided information to help you think through how best to involve people in your research. However, there will occasionally be times when things go wrong. Problems can often be sorted out by informal discussions but if you think that things are going wrong it is best to act quickly. If left unresolved, problems can get worse and affect a growing number of members of a team or organisation. Depending on what the issue is we suggest you consider some of the following:

• acknowledge that there is a problem
• listen to any concerns and openly discuss them with those involved along with any concerns that you might have
• allow space and time for all involved to reflect - public involvement in research is a learning process
• refer back to any relevant documents that you have developed such as ground rules for meetings, complaints policy, confidentiality agreements
• set a timescale for agreed change to happen
• let people know about any actions/changes/decisions
• ensure support is available if necessary
• consider using a skilled external facilitator to help with the reflection process

If you are unable to resolve issues using some of the above strategies or if either you or the member of the public feel a more independent review of the situation is required then a more formal approach should be considered. It is helpful to outline in your planning and preparation the procedure for complaints and resolving differences so that the information is clearly available from the beginning. More formal procedures might be:

• Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) Officers
• university complaints procedures
• local authority complaints procedures

If you are working with people representing a non-statutory organisation, that organisation might have its own processes.

Briefing note ten: where to go for further information

Nihr information.

Learning for Involvement allows you access training and guidance on public involvement People in Research reports live opportunities for public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research, and allows you to submit your own Read the NIHR Payment Guidance for Researchers and Professionals NIHR Research Support Service (RSS) - The RSS provides free and confidential support for researchers to apply for funding and develop and deliver clinical and applied health and care research. Access to support, advice and expertise is available for all researchers in England working across  the remit of the NIHR . NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) - The CRN supports patients, the public and health and care organisations across England to participate in high-quality research, thereby advancing knowledge and improving care. The CRN comprises 15 Local Clinical Research Networks (LCRN) and 30 Specialties which coordinate and support the delivery of high-quality research both by geography and therapy area. National leadership and coordination is provided through the Research Delivery Network Coordinating Centre. Contact your LCRN .

How to cite this guidance

NIHR, Briefing notes for researchers, April 2021, [URL], (Accessed on: [DATE])

Acknowledgements

This resource was reviewed by the NIHR in March 2021 for accuracy and currency. The NIHR endorses this resource. The previous version was referenced as: INVOLVE (2012) Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE, Eastleigh.

The authors of the 2012 version of the Briefing Notes for Researchers were Helen Hayes, Sarah Buckland and Maryrose Tarpey, who used to work for the INVOLVE Coordinating Centre. Additional contributors to thank for their involvement in the development of the 2012 version are: Ann Louise Caress, Alison Ford, Lesley Roberts, Carer, Kati Turner, Derek Ward, Tracey Williamson, Sarah Howlett, Lucy Simons, Philippa Yeeles, Gill Wren, Paula Davis, Sandra Paget, Doreen Tembo, Christine Vial.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• Research Objectives | Definition & Examples

Research Objectives | Definition & Examples

Published on July 12, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on November 20, 2023.

Research objectives describe what your research is trying to achieve and explain why you are pursuing it. They summarize the approach and purpose of your project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement . They should:

• Establish the scope and depth of your project
• Contribute to your research design
• Indicate how your project will contribute to existing knowledge

Table of contents

What is a research objective, why are research objectives important, how to write research aims and objectives, smart research objectives, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research objectives.

Research objectives describe what your research project intends to accomplish. They should guide every step of the research process , including how you collect data , build your argument , and develop your conclusions .

Your research objectives may evolve slightly as your research progresses, but they should always line up with the research carried out and the actual content of your paper.

Research aims

A distinction is often made between research objectives and research aims.

A research aim typically refers to a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear at the end of your problem statement, before your research objectives.

Your research objectives are more specific than your research aim and indicate the particular focus and approach of your project. Though you will only have one research aim, you will likely have several research objectives.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Research objectives are important because they:

• Establish the scope and depth of your project: This helps you avoid unnecessary research. It also means that your research methods and conclusions can easily be evaluated .
• Contribute to your research design: When you know what your objectives are, you have a clearer idea of what methods are most appropriate for your research.
• Indicate how your project will contribute to extant research: They allow you to display your knowledge of up-to-date research, employ or build on current research methods, and attempt to contribute to recent debates.

Once you’ve established a research problem you want to address, you need to decide how you will address it. This is where your research aim and objectives come in.

Step 1: Decide on a general aim

Your research aim should reflect your research problem and should be relatively broad.

Step 2: Decide on specific objectives

Break down your aim into a limited number of steps that will help you resolve your research problem. What specific aspects of the problem do you want to examine or understand?

Step 3: Formulate your aims and objectives

Once you’ve established your research aim and objectives, you need to explain them clearly and concisely to the reader.

You’ll lay out your aims and objectives at the end of your problem statement, which appears in your introduction. Frame them as clear declarative statements, and use appropriate verbs to accurately characterize the work that you will carry out.

The acronym “SMART” is commonly used in relation to research objectives. It states that your objectives should be:

• Specific: Make sure your objectives aren’t overly vague. Your research needs to be clearly defined in order to get useful results.
• Measurable: Know how you’ll measure whether your objectives have been achieved.
• Achievable: Your objectives may be challenging, but they should be feasible. Make sure that relevant groundwork has been done on your topic or that relevant primary or secondary sources exist. Also ensure that you have access to relevant research facilities (labs, library resources , research databases , etc.).
• Relevant: Make sure that they directly address the research problem you want to work on and that they contribute to the current state of research in your field.
• Time-based: Set clear deadlines for objectives to ensure that the project stays on track.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarize the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

Your research objectives indicate how you’ll try to address your research problem and should be specific:

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

• Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
• Your proposed timeline and duration
• Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
• Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, November 20). Research Objectives | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-objectives/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

The National Archives Catalog

Finding Aid Type

Prelim. Checklist Office of Naval Records and Library Index The finding aid is an alphabetical card index with a name entry for each cartoonist. Federal Bureau of Investigation Other Previous Element Next Element Table of Contents Lifecycle Data Requirements Guide Physical Review Research Collections Editorial Team Open Access Thermodynamic cost of finite-time stochastic resetting Kristian stølevik olsen, deepak gupta, francesco mori, and supriya krishnamurthy, phys. rev. research 6 , 033343 – published 27 september 2024. No Citing Articles INTRODUCTION GENERAL THEORY WORK FLUCTUATIONS HARMONIC TRAPS MEAN WORK UNDER ARBITRARY DURATIONS OF… COMPARISONS WITH OTHER RESETTING… Comparison to first-passage resets ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Recent experiments have implemented resetting by means of an external trap, whereby a system relaxes to the minimum of the trap and is reset in a finite time. In this work, we set up and analyze the thermodynamics of such a protocol. We present a general framework, valid even for non-Poissonian resetting, that captures the thermodynamic work required to maintain a resetting process up to a given observation time, and exactly calculate the moment generating function of this work. Our framework is valid for a wide range of systems, the only assumption being relaxation to equilibrium in the resetting trap. Examples and extensions are considered. In the case of Brownian motion, we investigate optimal resetting schemes that minimize work and its fluctuations, the mean work for arbitrary switching protocols, and comparisons to previously studied resetting schemes. Numerical simulations are performed to validate our findings. Received 28 June 2024 Accepted 5 September 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033343 Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by Bibsam . Published by the American Physical Society Physics Subject Headings (PhySH) Research Areas Authors & Affiliations 1 Institut für Theoretische Physik II - Weiche Materie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf , D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany 2 Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Indore , 453552,Khandwa Road, Simrol, Indore, India 3 Nordita , Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University , Hannes Alfvéns väg 12, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 4 Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom 5 Department of Physics, Stockholm University , 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden * These authors contributed equally to this work. † Contact author: [email protected] ‡ Contact author: [email protected] § Contact author: [email protected] Article Text Vol. 6, Iss. 3 — September - November 2024 Subject Areas Statistical Physics Authorization Required Other options. Buy Article » Find an Institution with the Article » Download & Share (a) We consider a resetting protocol where the system intermittently switches between a resetting potential V ( x ) and an exploration potential U ( x ) , both of which are completely general. (b), (c) Schematic of realizations of the resetting protocol as a function of time. The system is initially prepared in the potential V ( x ) [such that p eq ( x ) ∝ e − β V ( x ) ] , and switches to U ( x ) at time t = 0 . At a fixed observation time t , the system may reside in either the resetting phase [panel (b)], or in the exploration phase [panel (c)]. Contributions to the work generating function with zero ψ 0 ( k ) resets [panel (a)] and one resetting ψ 1 ( k ) [panel (b)]. ψ 1 ( k ) has two contributions, labeled (i) and (ii). Long-time scaled mean ( μ w ) and variance ( Σ w ) of work as a function of number ( θ ) of resetting trap-relaxation time. Lines: Analytical results Eqs. ( 24 ) and ( 25 ). Symbols: Numerical simulations (without the assumption of the particle's relaxation in each return phase). The color intensity increases with the resetting rate r . For numerical simulations, we take the observation time t = 10 4 . Parameters are set to λ V = 10 , γ = 1 , z = 2 , and D = 0.5 . Free exploration case ( λ U = 0 ). Scaled mean and variance as a function of time. Line: Theory [obtained by numerical inversion of the Laplace transform of Eqs. ( 22 ) and ( 23 )]. Symbol: Numerical simulations (without the assumption of the particle's relaxation in each return phase). We set the diffusion constant D = 0.5 , the dissipation coefficient γ = 1 , the reset trap's stiffness λ V = 10 , the trap's minimum at z = 2 , and number of relaxation time θ = 2 , resetting rate r = 0.1 . For numerical simulations, we take the time step Δ t = 10 − 4 , and number of realizations N R = 10 4 . Long time rate of average work Eq. ( 24 ) as a function of ( λ V , λ U ) . The dashed line corresponds to the minima given by Eq. ( 27 ), giving an optimal value of λ V * for a given λ U and z . Panels (a), (b), and (c), respectively, correspond to z = 0 , 0.5 , 1.5 . Parameters are fixed to T = r = γ = 1 , θ = 3 . (a) Scaled variance Σ W at long times given by Eq. ( 25 ) as a function of exploration ( λ U ) and resetting ( λ V ) potentials' stiffness. Resetting trap minimum is set to z = 1 / 2 . (b) Tradeoff relation between scaled standard deviation and mean work rates, for different values of the shift parameter z . Each curve shows the optimal values of scaled mean and scaled standard deviation obtained by substituting λ V * ( α ) ( 30 ) in Eqs. ( 24 ) and ( 25 ). (c) Optimal resetting trap strength λ V * ( 30 ) as a function of the parameter α , for different values of the shift parameter z . The red horizontal dashed line corresponds to λ U = 1 [fixed for panels (b) and (c)], and the color intensity increases with increasing the value of z . Other fixed parameters are T = r = γ = 1 , θ = 3 . Mean work rate 〈 W 〉 / n of resetting as a function of number n of resetting trails, for exponentially distributed exploration phases with rate r and resetting phases of fixed duration θ τ rel . Solid line: Eq. ( 39 ). Symbols: Numerical simulation. Number of realizations N R = 10 4 . The black dashed line shows the steady-state rate λ V D / r ( 42 ). Parameters used are r = D = γ = 1 , λ V = 0.25 , θ = 0.5 , x 0 = 0 . Mean work rate 〈 W 〉 / n for large n of resetting as a function of the exploration potential's strength λ U , for h ( τ ) = δ ( τ − 1 ) and f ( T ) = e − T 2 / 2 2 / π with T > 0 . Solid line: Exact result ( 50 ). Symbols: Numerical simulation. Each data point is obtained from a single trajectory of duration t = 10 7 . Parameters used are D = γ = 1 , λ V = 1 , x 0 = 0 . Harmonic return potential and free diffusion. Comparison of scaled mean work μ W ( 53 ) (blue lines) with that of obtained in Ref. [ 50 ] [Fig.  4  (right panel)] (red dashed line), as a function of trap stiffness λ V . The color intensity increases with increasing θ . Parameters: Resetting rate r = 0.5 , diffusion constant D = 0.75 , and dissipation constant γ = 1 . Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Research Reuse & Permissions It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures. Forgot your username/password? Create an account Article Lookup Paste a citation or doi, enter a citation. 492 IMAGES Research Findings PPT Online Dissemination of Research Findings How to do research Research: Meaning, Definition, Importance & Types PPT VIDEO WHAT IS RESEARCH? TAGALOG What is research What is research Research Meaning LECTURE 1. THE MEANING OF RESEARCH Metho1: What Is Research? COMMENTS Research Findings Qualitative Findings. Qualitative research is an exploratory research method used to understand the complexities of human behavior and experiences. Qualitative findings are non-numerical and descriptive data that describe the meaning and interpretation of the data collected. Examples of qualitative findings include quotes from participants ... Research Findings The main objective of the finding section in a research paper is to display or showcase the outcome in a logical manner by utilizing, tables, graphs, and charts. The objective of research findings is to provide a holistic view of the latest research findings in related areas. Research findings also aim at providing novel concepts and innovative ... How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research Step 1: Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study. The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will ... Findings Findings are the results or conclusions derived from research, analysis, or investigation, providing evidence that supports or refutes a hypothesis or argument. They play a crucial role in presenting an argument as they offer data and insights that inform the context, purpose, and audience of the work, ultimately shaping the narrative and persuasive elements of the argument. PDF Analyzing and Interpreting Findings forth between the findings of your research and your own perspectives and understandings to make sense and meaning. Meaning can come from looking at differences and similari-ties, from inquiring into and interpreting causes, consequences, and relationships. Data analysis in qualitative research remains somewhat mysterious (Marshall & Rossman, PDF Results/Findings Sections for Empirical Research Papers The Results (also sometimes called Findings) section in an empirical research paper describes what the researcher(s) found when they analyzed their data. Its primary purpose is to use the data collected to answer the research question(s) posed in the introduction, even if the findings challenge the hypothesis. Research Summary Research Summary. Definition: A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. RESEARCH FINDING definition and meaning RESEARCH FINDING definition | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper For most research papers in the social and behavioral sciences, there are two possible ways of organizing the results. Both approaches are appropriate in how you report your findings, but use only one approach. Present a synopsis of the results followed by an explanation of key findings. This approach can be used to highlight important findings. Explaining How Research Works Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle. Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. ... The mean age of survey ... How to Write a Results Section Here are a few best practices: Your results should always be written in the past tense. While the length of this section depends on how much data you collected and analyzed, it should be written as concisely as possible. Only include results that are directly relevant to answering your research questions. Looking forward: Making better use of research findings Implementing knowledge. Research findings can influence decisions at many levels—in caring for individual patients, in developing practice guidelines, in commissioning health care, in developing prevention and health promotion strategies, in developing policy, in designing educational programmes, and in performing clinical audit—but only if clinicians know how to translate knowledge into ... Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A We define dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and health service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice. Data vs. Findings vs. Insights: The Differences Explained Insights = Opportunities to the Business. Definition: Insights are focused explanations of opportunities, based on other user research and business context. While findings describe what is observed in the scope of a particular study or time frame of a live product, insights tie specific opportunities to specific user needs and they relate to ... What is Research? Qualitative Research: Qualitative research is an exploratory approach to understanding individuals' or groups' meaning, context, and subjective experiences. It involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, or textual analysis, to gain deep insights into complex social phenomena. Reporting Research Results in APA Style Before diving into your research findings, first describe the flow of participants at every stage of your study and whether any data were excluded from the final analysis. ... Group mean accuracy was also higher for the moderate caffeine group (M = 86.2%, SD = 7.3%) than the no-caffeine group (M = 81.6%, SD = 5.4%). Definition: Findings Findings. The principal outcomes of a research project; what the project suggested, revealed or indicated. This usually refers to the totality of outcomes, rather than the conclusions or recommendations drawn from them. Related Terms. Conclusions and recommendations Research Methods Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design. When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make. First, decide how you will collect data. Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question: Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it: Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation; Briefing notes for researchers These include helping to develop the research question, applying for funding and ethical approval, sitting on advisory groups, carrying out the research and disseminating the research findings. This section considers the different ways members of the public can get involved in the stages of the research cycle. What Is Research Misconduct Definition of Research Misconduct. As an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH follows the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct 42 CFR 93 . Research misconduct means fabricating, falsifying, and/or plagiarizing in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research Objectives Example: Research objectives. To assess the relationship between sedentary habits and muscle atrophy among the participants. To determine the impact of dietary factors, particularly protein consumption, on the muscular health of the participants. To determine the effect of physical activity on the participants' muscular health. Did a top NIH official manipulate Alzheimer's and Parkinson ... Microbiologist and research integrity expert Elisabeth Bik, who also worked on the Zlokovic dossier, contributed other Masliah examples and reviewed and concurred with almost all of the findings. All of the dossier authors worked as volunteers, poring over papers and images in their spare time. Finding Aid Type Mandatory Repeatable Data Type Authority Level Available A/V Only Public Element No Yes Variable Character Length (20) Finding Aid Type List Record Group Collection Series File Unit No Yes Definition: The type of finding aid for the record group, collection, or series being described. Finding aids are tools that help a user find information in a specific record group, collection, or series of ... RESEARCH FINDING definition in American English RESEARCH FINDING meaning | Definition, pronunciation, translations and examples in American English. TRANSLATOR. LANGUAGE. GAMES. SCHOOLS. BLOG. RESOURCES. More . English Dictionary. ... Rising property prices have hit the young particularly hard, with research finding only 18 per cent of mortgage holders under 35 in 2013 - down 21 per cent ... Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033343 (2024) In the case of Brownian motion, we investigate optimal resetting schemes that minimize work and its fluctuations, the mean work for arbitrary switching protocols, and comparisons to previously studied resetting schemes. Numerical simulations are performed to validate our findings. ... Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033343 - Published 27 September 2024. assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech thesis