what is scope in research study

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

Scope and Delimitations – Explained & Example

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 2, 2020

What Is Scope and Delimitation in Research?

The scope and delimitations of a thesis, dissertation or research paper define the topic and boundaries of the research problem to be investigated.

The scope details how in-depth your study is to explore the research question and the parameters in which it will operate in relation to the population and timeframe.

The delimitations of a study are the factors and variables not to be included in the investigation. In other words, they are the boundaries the researcher sets in terms of study duration, population size and type of participants, etc.

Difference Between Delimitations and Limitations

Delimitations refer to the boundaries of the research study, based on the researcher’s decision of what to include and what to exclude. They narrow your study to make it more manageable and relevant to what you are trying to prove.

Limitations relate to the validity and reliability of the study. They are characteristics of the research design or methodology that are out of your control but influence your research findings. Because of this, they determine the internal and external validity of your study and are considered potential weaknesses.

In other words, limitations are what the researcher cannot do (elements outside of their control) and delimitations are what the researcher will not do (elements outside of the boundaries they have set). Both are important because they help to put the research findings into context, and although they explain how the study is limited, they increase the credibility and validity of a research project.

Guidelines on How to Write a Scope

A good scope statement will answer the following six questions:

• Why – the general aims and objectives (purpose) of the research.
• What – the subject to be investigated, and the included variables.
• Where – the location or setting of the study, i.e. where the data will be gathered and to which entity the data will belong.
• When – the timeframe within which the data is to be collected.
• Who – the subject matter of the study and the population from which they will be selected. This population needs to be large enough to be able to make generalisations.
• How – how the research is to be conducted, including a description of the research design (e.g. whether it is experimental research, qualitative research or a case study), methodology, research tools and analysis techniques.

To make things as clear as possible, you should also state why specific variables were omitted from the research scope, and whether this was because it was a delimitation or a limitation. You should also explain why they could not be overcome with standard research methods backed up by scientific evidence.

How to Start Writing Your Study Scope

Use the below prompts as an effective way to start writing your scope:

• This study is to focus on…
• This study covers the…
• This study aims to…

Guidelines on How to Write Delimitations

Since the delimitation parameters are within the researcher’s control, readers need to know why they were set, what alternative options were available, and why these alternatives were rejected. For example, if you are collecting data that can be derived from three different but similar experiments, the reader needs to understand how and why you decided to select the one you have.

Your reasons should always be linked back to your research question, as all delimitations should result from trying to make your study more relevant to your scope. Therefore, the scope and delimitations are usually considered together when writing a paper.

How to Start Writing Your Study Delimitations

Use the below prompts as an effective way to start writing your study delimitations:

• This study does not cover…
• This study is limited to…
• The following has been excluded from this study…

Examples of Delimitation in Research

Examples of delimitations include:

• research objectives,
• research questions,
• research variables,
• target populations,
• statistical analysis techniques .

Examples of Limitations in Research

Examples of limitations include:

• Issues with sample and selection,
• Insufficient sample size, population traits or specific participants for statistical significance,
• Lack of previous research studies on the topic which has allowed for further analysis,
• Limitations in the technology/instruments used to collect your data,
• Limited financial resources and/or funding constraints.

An In Press article is a paper that has been accepted for publication and is being prepared for print.

Fieldwork can be essential for your PhD project. Use these tips to help maximise site productivity and reduce your research time by a few weeks.

Is it really possible to do a PhD while working? The answer is ‘yes’, but it comes with several ‘buts’. Read our post to find out if it’s for you.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

This post explains where and how to write the list of figures in your thesis or dissertation.

Scientific misconduct can be described as a deviation from the accepted standards of scientific research, study and publication ethics.

Jay is in the third year of his PhD at Savitribai Phule Pune University, researching the applications of mesenchymal stem cells and nanocarrier for bone tissue engineering.

Elmira is in the third year of her PhD program at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology; Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, researching the mechanisms of acute myeloid leukemia cells resistance to targeted therapy.

Join Thousands of Students

Scope and Delimitations in Research

Delimitations are the boundaries that the researcher sets in a research study, deciding what to include and what to exclude. They help to narrow down the study and make it more manageable and relevant to the research goal.

Updated on October 19, 2022

All scientific research has boundaries, whether or not the authors clearly explain them. Your study's scope and delimitations are the sections where you define the broader parameters and boundaries of your research.

The scope details what your study will explore, such as the target population, extent, or study duration. Delimitations are factors and variables not included in the study.

Scope and delimitations are not methodological shortcomings; they're always under your control. Discussing these is essential because doing so shows that your project is manageable and scientifically sound.

This article covers:

• What's meant by “scope” and “delimitations”
• Why these are integral components of every study
• How and where to actually write about scope and delimitations in your manuscript
• Examples of scope and delimitations from published studies

What is the scope in a research paper?

Simply put, the scope is the domain of your research. It describes the extent to which the research question will be explored in your study.

Articulating your study's scope early on helps you make your research question focused and realistic.

It also helps decide what data you need to collect (and, therefore, what data collection tools you need to design). Getting this right is vital for both academic articles and funding applications.

What are delimitations in a research paper?

Delimitations are those factors or aspects of the research area that you'll exclude from your research. The scope and delimitations of the study are intimately linked.

Essentially, delimitations form a more detailed and narrowed-down formulation of the scope in terms of exclusion. The delimitations explain what was (intentionally) not considered within the given piece of research.

Scope and delimitations examples

Use the following examples provided by our expert PhD editors as a reference when coming up with your own scope and delimitations.

Scope example

Your research question is, “What is the impact of bullying on the mental health of adolescents?” This topic, on its own, doesn't say much about what's being investigated.

The scope, for example, could encompass:

• Variables: “bullying” (dependent variable), “mental health” (independent variable), and ways of defining or measuring them
• Bullying type: Both face-to-face and cyberbullying
• Target population: Adolescents aged 12–17
• Geographical coverage: France or only one specific town in France

Delimitations example

Look back at the previous example.

Exploring the adverse effects of bullying on adolescents' mental health is a preliminary delimitation. This one was chosen from among many possible research questions (e.g., the impact of bullying on suicide rates, or children or adults).

Delimiting factors could include:

• Research design : Mixed-methods research, including thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews and statistical analysis of a survey
• Timeframe : Data collection to run for 3 months
• Population size : 100 survey participants; 15 interviewees
• Recruitment of participants : Quota sampling (aiming for specific portions of men, women, ethnic minority students etc.)

We can see that every choice you make in planning and conducting your research inevitably excludes other possible options.

What's the difference between limitations and delimitations?

Delimitations and limitations are entirely different, although they often get mixed up. These are the main differences:

This chart explains the difference between delimitations and limitations. Delimitations are the boundaries of the study while the limitations are the characteristics of the research design or methodology.

Delimitations encompass the elements outside of the boundaries you've set and depends on your decision of what yo include and exclude. On the flip side, limitations are the elements outside of your control, such as:

• limited financial resources
• unplanned work or expenses
• unexpected events (for example, the COVID-19 pandemic)
• time constraints
• lack of technology/instruments
• unavailable evidence or previous research on the topic

Delimitations involve narrowing your study to make it more manageable and relevant to what you're trying to prove. Limitations influence the validity and reliability of your research findings. Limitations are seen as potential weaknesses in your research.

Example of the differences

To clarify these differences, go back to the limitations of the earlier example.

Limitations could comprise:

• Sample size : Not large enough to provide generalizable conclusions.
• Sampling approach : Non-probability sampling has increased bias risk. For instance, the researchers might not manage to capture the experiences of ethnic minority students.
• Methodological pitfalls : Research participants from an urban area (Paris) are likely to be more advantaged than students in rural areas. A study exploring the latter's experiences will probably yield very different findings.

Where do you write the scope and delimitations, and why?

It can be surprisingly empowering to realize you're restricted when conducting scholarly research. But this realization also makes writing up your research easier to grasp and makes it easier to see its limits and the expectations placed on it. Properly revealing this information serves your field and the greater scientific community.

Openly (but briefly) acknowledge the scope and delimitations of your study early on. The Abstract and Introduction sections are good places to set the parameters of your paper.

Next, discuss the scope and delimitations in greater detail in the Methods section. You'll need to do this to justify your methodological approach and data collection instruments, as well as analyses

At this point, spell out why these delimitations were set. What alternative options did you consider? Why did you reject alternatives? What could your study not address?

Let's say you're gathering data that can be derived from different but related experiments. You must convince the reader that the one you selected best suits your research question.

Finally, a solid paper will return to the scope and delimitations in the Findings or Discussion section. Doing so helps readers contextualize and interpret findings because the study's scope and methods influence the results.

For instance, agricultural field experiments carried out under irrigated conditions yield different results from experiments carried out without irrigation.

Being transparent about the scope and any outstanding issues increases your research's credibility and objectivity. It helps other researchers replicate your study and advance scientific understanding of the same topic (e.g., by adopting a different approach).

How do you write the scope and delimitations?

Define the scope and delimitations of your study before collecting data. This is critical. This step should be part of your research project planning.

Answering the following questions will help you address your scope and delimitations clearly and convincingly.

• What are your study's aims and objectives?
• Why did you carry out the study?
• What was the exact topic under investigation?
• Which factors and variables were included? And state why specific variables were omitted from the research scope.
• Who or what did the study explore? What was the target population?
• What was the study's location (geographical area) or setting (e.g., laboratory)?
• What was the timeframe within which you collected your data ?
• Consider a study exploring the differences between identical twins who were raised together versus identical twins who weren't. The data collection might span 5, 10, or more years.
• A study exploring a new immigration policy will cover the period since the policy came into effect and the present moment.
• How was the research conducted (research design)?
• Experimental research, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research, literature review, etc.
• What data collection tools and analysis techniques were used? e.g., If you chose quantitative methods, which statistical analysis techniques and software did you use?
• What did you find?
• What did you conclude?

Useful vocabulary for scope and delimitations

When explaining both the scope and delimitations, it's important to use the proper language to clearly state each.

For the scope , use the following language:

• This study focuses on/considers/investigates/covers the following:
• This study aims to . . . / Here, we aim to show . . . / In this study, we . . .
• The overall objective of the research is . . . / Our objective is to . . .

When stating the delimitations, use the following language:

• This [ . . . ] will not be the focus, for it has been frequently and exhaustively discusses in earlier studies.
• To review the [ . . . ] is a task that lies outside the scope of this study.
• The following [ . . . ] has been excluded from this study . . .
• This study does not provide a complete literature review of [ . . . ]. Instead, it draws on selected pertinent studies [ . . . ]

Analysis of a published scope

In one example, Simione and Gnagnarella (2020) compared the psychological and behavioral impact of COVID-19 on Italy's health workers and general population.

Here's a breakdown of the study's scope into smaller chunks and discussion of what works and why.

Also notable is that this study's delimitations include references to:

• Recruitment of participants: Convenience sampling
• Demographic characteristics of study participants: Age, sex, etc.
• Measurements methods: E.g., the death anxiety scale of the Existential Concerns Questionnaire (ECQ; van Bruggen et al., 2017) etc.
• Data analysis tool: The statistical software R

Analysis of published scope and delimitations

Scope of the study : Johnsson et al. (2019) explored the effect of in-hospital physiotherapy on postoperative physical capacity, physical activity, and lung function in patients who underwent lung cancer surgery.

The delimitations narrowed down the scope as follows:

Refine your scope, delimitations, and scientific English

English ability shouldn't limit how clear and impactful your research can be. Expert AJE editors are available to assess your science and polish your academic writing. See AJE services here .

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Setting Limits and Focusing Your Study: Exploring scope and delimitation

As a researcher, it can be easy to get lost in the vast expanse of information and data available. Thus, when starting a research project, one of the most important things to consider is the scope and delimitation of the study. Setting limits and focusing your study is essential to ensure that the research project is manageable, relevant, and able to produce useful results. In this article, we will explore the importance of setting limits and focusing your study through an in-depth analysis of scope and delimitation.

Company Name 123

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, cu usu cibo vituperata, id ius probo maiestatis inciderint, sit eu vide volutpat.

Sign Up for More Insights

Table of Contents

Scope and Delimitation – Definition and difference

Scope refers to the range of the research project and the study limitations set in place to define the boundaries of the project and delimitation refers to the specific aspects of the research project that the study will focus on.

In simpler words, scope is the breadth of your study, while delimitation is the depth of your study.

Scope and delimitation are both essential components of a research project, and they are often confused with one another. The scope defines the parameters of the study, while delimitation sets the boundaries within those parameters. The scope and delimitation of a study are usually established early on in the research process and guide the rest of the project.

Types of Scope and Delimitation

Significance of Scope and Delimitation

Setting limits and focusing your study through scope and delimitation is crucial for the following reasons:

• It allows researchers to define the research project’s boundaries, enabling them to focus on specific aspects of the project. This focus makes it easier to gather relevant data and avoid unnecessary information that might complicate the study’s results.
• Setting limits and focusing your study through scope and delimitation enables the researcher to stay within the parameters of the project’s resources.
• A well-defined scope and delimitation ensure that the research project can be completed within the available resources, such as time and budget, while still achieving the project’s objectives.

5 Steps to Setting Limits and Defining the Scope and Delimitation of Your Study

There are a few steps that you can take to set limits and focus your study.

1. Identify your research question or topic

The first step is to identify what you are interested in learning about. The research question should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). Once you have a research question or topic, you can start to narrow your focus.

2. Consider the key terms or concepts related to your topic

What are the important terms or concepts that you need to understand in order to answer your research question? Consider all available resources, such as time, budget, and data availability, when setting scope and delimitation.

The scope and delimitation should be established within the parameters of the available resources. Once you have identified the key terms or concepts, you can start to develop a glossary or list of definitions.

3. Consider the different perspectives on your topic

There are often different perspectives on any given topic. Get feedback on the proposed scope and delimitation. Advisors can provide guidance on the feasibility of the study and offer suggestions for improvement.

It is important to consider all of the different perspectives in order to get a well-rounded understanding of your topic.

4. Narrow your focus

Be specific and concise when setting scope and delimitation. The parameters of the study should be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity and ensure that the study is focused on relevant aspects of the research question.

This means deciding which aspects of your topic you will focus on and which aspects you will eliminate.

5. Develop the final research plan

Revisit and revise the scope and delimitation as needed. As the research project progresses, the scope and delimitation may need to be adjusted to ensure that the study remains focused on the research question and can produce useful results. This plan should include your research goals, methods, and timeline.

Examples of Scope and Delimitation

To better understand scope and delimitation, let us consider two examples of research questions and how scope and delimitation would apply to them.

Research question: What are the effects of social media on mental health?

Scope: The scope of the study will focus on the impact of social media on the mental health of young adults aged 18-24 in the United States.

Delimitation: The study will specifically examine the following aspects of social media: frequency of use, types of social media platforms used, and the impact of social media on self-esteem and body image.

Research question: What are the factors that influence employee job satisfaction in the healthcare industry?

Scope: The scope of the study will focus on employee job satisfaction in the healthcare industry in the United States.

Delimitation: The study will specifically examine the following factors that influence employee job satisfaction: salary, work-life balance, job security, and opportunities for career growth.

Setting limits and defining the scope and delimitation of a research study is essential to conducting effective research. By doing so, researchers can ensure that their study is focused, manageable, and feasible within the given time frame and resources. It can also help to identify areas that require further study, providing a foundation for future research.

So, the next time you embark on a research project, don’t forget to set clear limits and define the scope and delimitation of your study. It may seem like a tedious task, but it can ultimately lead to more meaningful and impactful research. And if you still can’t find a solution, reach out to Enago Academy using #AskEnago and tag @EnagoAcademy on Twitter , Facebook , and Quora .

Frequently Asked Questions

The scope in research refers to the boundaries and extent of a study, defining its specific objectives, target population, variables, methods, and limitations, which helps researchers focus and provide a clear understanding of what will be investigated.

Delimitation in research defines the specific boundaries and limitations of a study, such as geographical, temporal, or conceptual constraints, outlining what will be excluded or not within the scope of investigation, providing clarity and ensuring the study remains focused and manageable.

To write a scope; 1. Clearly define research objectives. 2. Identify specific research questions. 3. Determine the target population for the study. 4. Outline the variables to be investigated. 5. Establish limitations and constraints. 6. Set boundaries and extent of the investigation. 7. Ensure focus, clarity, and manageability. 8. Provide context for the research project.

To write delimitations; 1. Identify geographical boundaries or constraints. 2. Define the specific time period or timeframe of the study. 3. Specify the sample size or selection criteria. 4. Clarify any demographic limitations (e.g., age, gender, occupation). 5. Address any limitations related to data collection methods. 6. Consider limitations regarding the availability of resources or data. 7. Exclude specific variables or factors from the scope of the study. 8. Clearly state any conceptual boundaries or theoretical frameworks. 9. Acknowledge any potential biases or constraints in the research design. 10. Ensure that the delimitations provide a clear focus and scope for the study.

What is an example of delimitation of the study?

Thank you 💕

Thank You very simplified🩷

Thanks, I find this article very helpful

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Research Manuscripts Using AI-Powered Insights: Enago reports for effective research communication

Language Quality Importance in Academia AI in Evaluating Language Quality Enago Language Reports Live Demo…

• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

• Industry News
• Trending Now

Breaking Barriers: Sony and Nature unveil “Women in Technology Award”

Sony Group Corporation and the prestigious scientific journal Nature have collaborated to launch the inaugural…

Achieving Research Excellence: Checklist for good research practices

Academia is built on the foundation of trustworthy and high-quality research, supported by the pillars…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Demystifying the Role of Confounding Variables in Research

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Academic Research in Education

• How to Find Books, Articles and eBooks
• Books, eBooks, & Multimedia
• Evaluating Information
• Deciding on a Topic
• Creating a Thesis Statement
• The Literature Review
• Scope of Research

Defining the Scope of your Project

What is scope.

• Choosing a Design
• Citing Sources & Avoiding Plagiarism
• Contact Library

Post-Grad Collective [PGC]. (2017, February 13). Thesis Writing-Narrow the Scope   [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlCO5yRB9No&feature=youtu.be

Learn to cite a YouTube Video! 

The scope of your project sets clear parameters for your research. 

A scope statement will give basic information about the depth and breadth of the project. It tells your reader exactly what you want to find out , how you will conduct your study, the reports and deliverables  that will be part of the outcome of the study, and the responsibilities of the researchers involved in the study. The extent of the scope will be a part of acknowledging any biases in the research project. 

Defining the scope of a project: 

• focuses your research goals
• clarifies the expectations for your research project
•  helps you determine potential biases in your research methodology by acknowledging the limits of your research study 
• identifies the limitations of your research 
• << Previous: The Literature Review
• Next: Choosing a Design >>
• Last Updated: Mar 7, 2024 9:06 AM
• URL: https://moc.libguides.com/aca_res_edu

Faculty & Staff Directory

Event Calendar

News Archives

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

Public Relations

634 Henderson St.

Mount Olive, NC 28365

1-800-653-0854

[email protected]

Chapter 1: Getting started with research

1.2 Determining your scope

The first thing you need to do is determine the scope of your research. Take a few minutes to think about your topic and the kind of information you might need. You can define your research scope by thinking about the following:

• Amount: how much information you need
• Content: the types of information you need
• Format: the configuration of the source (e.g., books, articles, videos, etc.)

Establishing the boundaries for your research may come from your instructor’s assignment guidelines. By carefully reviewing your assignment requirements and your instructor’s expectations, you can refine what research question you’re trying to answer and determine where you need to look for sources, what types and formats to use, and what content within your sources will be helpful.

Information that is appropriate for one research project may not be appropriate or relevant for another. For example, if you need to give a five minute class presentation on the pros or cons of an issue, you probably need a few sources that cover the key aspects of the issue and not every paper that’s ever been written on the topic. If you were writing a lengthy class paper, you would want more comprehensive coverage of your topic.

Amount of information

Sometimes your instructor will require that you use at least a specific number of sources for a project, but you won’t always have that as a guideline. If you need to determine the number of sources to use on your own, you can base it on what seems to be enough to fully answer your research question. Keep in mind that this might be more sources than the minimum you’re required to use.

Types of information

Knowing what types of information you need will help you be more efficient and successful in your research. Some common types of information are listed below.

Background information

This kind of information gives you a basic understanding and vocabulary surrounding a topic. Background information is broad and tends to be general. This is helpful when you don’t already know a lot about your topic. Examples of where you can find background information include encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia or introductory textbooks.

News sources

News reports can provide information on an event or perspectives from a given point in time. They’re intended to keep us informed about current events and popular topics, and rarely go in depth or provide sources for further reading. News sources can help illustrate your points with timely examples or historical perspectives on a topic. They include historical or current newspapers, news websites, and some magazines. The Des Moines Register and Time magazine are examples of news sources.

Statistical information

Statistical information includes data and reports produced by research groups, associations, governmental organizations, non-profits, and more. These are helpful for making comparisons between groups, showing changes over time, and making predictions. Statistical databases and government websites, like the U.S. Census website, are examples of sources that contain statistics.

Library 160: Introduction to College-Level Research Copyright © 2021 by Iowa State University Library Instruction Services is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Implement Sci

Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

Danielle levac.

1 School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, Room 403, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Heather Colquhoun

Kelly k o'brien.

2 Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process.

We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research.

Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.

Scoping studies (or scoping reviews) represent an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence [ 1 ]. However, no universal scoping study definition or purpose exists (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) [ 1 , 2 ]. Definitions commonly refer to 'mapping,' a process of summarizing a range of evidence in order to convey the breadth and depth of a field. Scoping studies differ from systematic reviews because authors do not typically assess the quality of included studies [ 3 - 5 ]. Scoping studies also differ from narrative or literature reviews in that the scoping process requires analytical reinterpretation of the literature [ 1 ].

Definitions and purposes of scoping studies

Researchers can undertake a scoping study to examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review, summarize and disseminate research findings, or identify gaps in the existing literature [ 6 ]. As such, researchers can use scoping studies to clarify a complex concept and refine subsequent research inquiries [ 1 ]. Scoping studies may be particularly relevant to disciplines with emerging evidence, such as rehabilitation science, in which the paucity of randomized controlled trials makes it difficult for researchers to undertake systematic reviews. In these situations, scoping studies are ideal because researchers can incorporate a range of study designs in both published and grey literature, address questions beyond those related to intervention effectiveness, and generate findings that can complement the findings of clinical trials.

In an effort to provide guidance to authors undertaking scoping studies, Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] developed a six-stage methodological framework: identifying the research question, searching for relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, collating, summarizing, and reporting the results, and consulting with stakeholders to inform or validate study findings (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). While this framework provided an excellent methodological foundation, published scoping studies continue to lack sufficient methodological description or detail about the data analysis process, making it challenging for readers to understand how study findings were determined [ 1 ]. Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] encouraged other authors to refine their framework in order to enhance the methodology.

Overview of the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework for conducting a scoping study

In this paper, we apply our experiences using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to build on the existing methodological framework. Specifically, we propose recommendations for each stage of the framework, followed by considerations for the advancement, application, and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Continual refinement of the framework stages may provide greater clarity about scoping study methodology, encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process, and help to enhance the methodological rigor with which authors undertake and report scoping studies [ 1 ].

We each completed a scoping study in separate areas of rehabilitation using the Arksey and O'Malley framework [ 6 ]. Goals of these studies included: identifying research priorities within HIV and rehabilitation [ 7 ], applying motor learning strategies within pediatric physical and occupational therapy intervention approaches [ 8 ], and exploring the use of theory within studies of knowledge translation [ 9 ]. The amount of literature reviewed in our studies ranged from 31 (DL) to 146 (KO) publications. Upon discovering that we had similar challenges implementing the scoping study methodology, we decided to use our experiences to further develop the existing framework. We conducted an informal literature search on scoping study methodology. We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ERIC, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases using the search terms 'scoping,' 'scoping study,' 'scoping review,' and 'scoping methodology' for papers published in English between January 1990 and May 2010. Reference lists of pertinent papers were also searched. This search yielded seven citations that reflected on scoping study methodology, which were reviewed by one author (DL). After independently considering our own experiences utilizing the Arskey and O'Malley [ 6 ] framework, we met on seven occasions to discuss the challenges and develop recommendations for each stage of the methodological framework.

Recommendations to enhance scoping study methodology

We outline the challenges and recommendations associated with each stage of the methodological framework (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Summary of challenges and recommendations for scoping studies

Framework stage one: Identifying the research question

Scoping study research questions are broad in nature as the focus is on summarizing breadth of evidence. Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] acknowledge the need to maintain a broad scope to research questions, however we found our research questions lacked the direction, clarity, and focus needed to inform subsequent stages of the research process, such as identifying studies and making decisions about study inclusion. To clarify this stage, we recommend that researchers combine a broad research question with a clearly articulated scope of inquiry. This includes defining the concept, target population, and health outcomes of interest to clarify the focus of the scoping study and establish an effective search strategy. For example, in one author's (KO) scoping study, the research question was broadly 'what is known about HIV and rehabilitation?' Defining the concept of 'rehabilitation' was essential in order to establish a clear scope to the study, guide the search strategy, and establish parameters around study selection in subsequent stages of the process [ 7 ].

Although Arskey and O'Malley [ 6 ] outline four main purposes for undertaking a scoping study, they do not articulate that purpose be specified within a specific framework stage. We recommend researchers simultaneously consider the purpose of the scoping study when articulating the research question. Linking a clear purpose for undertaking a scoping study to a well-defined research question at the first stage of the framework will help to provide a clear rationale for completing the study and facilitate decision making about study selection and data extraction later in the methodological process. A helpful strategy may be to envision the content and format of the intended outcome that may assist researchers to clearly determine the purpose at the beginning of a study. In the abovementioned HIV study, authors linked the broadly stated research question with a more specific purpose 'to identify the key research priorities in HIV and rehabilitation to advance policy and practice for people living with HIV in Canada' [ 7 ]. The envisioned outcome was a thematic framework that represented strengths and opportunities in HIV rehabilitation research, followed by a list of the key research priorities to pursue in future work.

Finally, the purposes put forth by Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] require more debate. We concur with Anderson et al. [ 2 ] and Davis et al. [ 1 ], who state that researchers may benefit from further clarification of the purposes for undertaking a scoping study. The first purpose, as articulated by Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ], is to summarize the extent, range, and nature of research activity; however, researchers are not required to reflect on their underlying motivation for doing so. We recommend that researchers consider the rationale for why they should summarize the activity in a field and the implications that this will have on research, practice, or policy. The second purpose is to assess the need for a full systematic review. However, it is difficult to determine whether a systematic review is advantageous when a scoping study does not involve methodological quality assessment of included studies. Furthermore, it is unclear how this purpose differs from existing methods of determining feasibility for a systematic review. The third purpose is to summarize and disseminate research findings, but we question how this differs from other narrative or systematic literature reviews. Lastly, the fourth purpose of undertaking a scoping study -- to identify gaps in the existing literature -- may yield false conclusions about the nature and extent of those gaps if the quality of the evidence is not assessed. The purpose 'to identify the key research priorities in HIV and rehabilitation to advance policy and practice for people living with HIV in Canada' does not explicitly align with one of the four Arskey and O'Malley purposes [ 7 ]. However, it appears authors inherently first summarized the extent, range, and nature of research (purpose one) and identified gaps in the existing literature (purpose four) in order to subsequently identify the key research priorities in HIV and rehabilitation (author purpose). This suggests authors might have an overall study purpose with multiple objectives articulated by Arksey and O'Malley that are required in order to help achieve their overall purpose.

Framework stage two: Identifying relevant studies

A strength of scoping studies includes the breadth and depth, or comprehensiveness, of evidence covered in a given field [ 1 ]. However, practical issues related to time, funding, and access to resources often require researchers to consider the balance between feasibility, breadth, and comprehensiveness. Brien et al. [ 5 ] reported that their search strategy yielded a vast amount of literature, making it difficult to determine how in depth to carry out the information synthesis. Although Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] identify these concerns and provide some suggestions to support these decisions, we also struggled with the trade-off between breadth and comprehensiveness and feasibility in our scoping studies. As such, we recommend that researchers ensure decisions surrounding feasibility do not compromise their ability to answer the research question or achieve the study purpose. Second, we recommend that a scoping study team be assembled whose members provide the methodological and context expertise needed for decisions regarding breadth and comprehensiveness. When limiting scope is unavoidable, researchers should justify their decisions and acknowledge the potential limitations of their study.

Framework stage three: Study selection

Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] provide suggestions to manage the time-consuming process of determining which studies to include in a scoping study. We experienced this stage as more iterative and requiring additional steps than implied in the original framework. While Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] do not indicate a team approach is imperative, we agree with others and suggest scoping studies involve multidisciplinary teams using a transparent and replicable process [ 2 , 10 ]. In two of our studies (HC and DL) where decision making was primarily completed by a single author, we faced several challenges, including uncertainty about which studies to include, variables to extract on the data-charting form, and the nature and extent of detail to conduct the data extraction process. This raised questions related to rigor and led to our recommendations for undertaking a systematic team approach to conducting a scoping study.

Specifically, we recommend that the team meet to discuss decisions surrounding study inclusion and exclusion at the beginning of the scoping process. Refining the search strategy based on abstracts retrieved from the search and reviewing full articles for study inclusion is also a critical step. We recommend that at least two researchers each independently review abstracts yielded from the search strategy for study selection. Reviewers should meet at the beginning, midpoint, and final stages of the abstract review process to discuss any challenges or uncertainties related to study selection and to go back and refine the search strategy if needed. This can help to alleviate potential ambiguity with a broad research question and to ensure that abstracts selected are relevant for full article review. Next, two reviewers should independently review the full articles for inclusion. When disagreements occur, a third reviewer can be consulted to determine final inclusion.

Framework stage four: Charting the data

This stage involves extracting data from included studies. Based on our experiences, we were uncertain about the nature and extent of information to extract from the included studies. To clarify this stage, we recommend that the research team collectively develop the data-charting form to determine which variables to extract that will help to answer the research question. Secondly, we recommend that charting be considered an iterative process in which researchers continually update the data-charting form. This is particularly true for process-oriented data, such as understanding how a theory or model has been used within a study. Uncertainty about the nature and extent of data that should be extracted may be resolved by researchers beginning the charting process and becoming familiar with study data, and then meeting again to refine the form. We recommend an additional step to charting the data in which two researchers independently extract data from the first five to ten studies using the data-charting form and meet to determine whether their approach to data extraction is consistent with the research question and purpose. Researchers may review one study several times within this stage. The number of researchers involved in the data extraction process will likely depend upon the number of included studies. For example, in one study, authors had difficulty developing one data-charting form that could apply to all included studies representing a range study designs, reviews, reports, and commentaries [ 7 ]. As a preliminary step, authors decided to classify the included studies into three areas --HIV disability, interventions, and roles of rehabilitation professionals in HIV care -- to help determine the nature and extent of information to extract from each of the types of studies [ 7 ].

Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] refer to a 'descriptive analytical method' that involves summarizing process information, such as the use of a theory or model in a meaningful format. Our experiences indicated that this is a highly valuable, though challenging aspect of scoping studies, as we struggled to chart and summarize complex concepts in a meaningful way. Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] indicate that synthesis of material is critical as scoping studies are not a short summary of many articles. We agree, and feel that additional direction in the framework might help to navigate this crucial but challenging stage. Perhaps synthesizing process information may benefit from utilization of qualitative content analysis approaches to make sense of the wealth of extracted data [ 11 ]. This issue also highlights the overlap with the next analytical stage. The role and relevance of analyzing process data and using qualitative content analysis within scoping study methodology requires further discussion.

Framework stage five: Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

Stage five is the most extensive in the scoping process, yet it lacks detail in the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Scoping studies have been criticized for rarely providing methodological detail about how results were achieved [ 1 ]. We appreciate the importance of breaking the analysis phase into meaningful and systematic steps so that researchers can provide this undertake scoping studies and report on findings in a rigorous manner. As a result, we recommend three distinct steps in framework stage five to increase the consistency with which researchers undertake and report scoping study methodology: analyzing the data, reporting results, and applying meaning to the results. As described in the existing framework, analysis (otherwise referred to as collating and summarizing) should involve a descriptive numerical summary and a thematic analysis. Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] describe the need to provide a descriptive numerical summary, stating that researchers should describe the characteristics of included studies, such as the overall number of studies included, types of study design, years of publication, types of interventions, characteristics of the study populations, and countries where studies were conducted. However, the description of thematic analysis requires additional detail to assist authors in understanding and completing this step. In our experience, this analytical stage resembled qualitative data analytical techniques, and researchers may consider using qualitative content analytical techniques [ 10 ] and qualitative software to facilitate this process.

Second, when reporting results, we recommend that researchers consider the best approach to stating the outcome or end product of the study and how the scoping study findings will be articulated to readers ( e.g ., through themes, a framework, or a table of strengths and gaps in the evidence). This product should be tied to the purpose of the scoping study as recommended in framework stage one.

Finally, in order to advance the legitimacy of scoping study methodology, we must consider the implications of findings within the broader context. As a result, we recommend that researchers consider the meaning of their scoping study results and the broader implications for research, policy, and practice. For example, for the question 'how are motor-learning strategies used within contemporary physical and occupational therapy intervention approaches for children with neuromotor conditions?,' the author (DL) presented themes that described strategy use. Results yielded insights into how researchers should better describe interventions in their publications and provided further considerations for clinicians to make informed decisions about which therapeutic approach might best fit their clients' needs. Considering the overall implications of the results as an explicit framework stage will help to ensure that scoping study results have practical implications for future clinical practice, research, and policy. This recommendation leads to the final stage of the framework.

Optional stage six: Consultation

Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] suggest that consultation is an optional stage in conducting a scoping study. Although only one of our three scoping studies incorporated this stage, we argue that it adds methodological rigor and should be considered a required component. Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] suggest that the purposes of consulting with stakeholders are to offer additional sources of information, perspectives, meaning, and applicability to the scoping study. However, it is unclear when, how, and why to consult with stakeholders, and how to analyze and integrate these data with the findings. We recommend researchers clearly establish a purpose for the consultation, which may include sharing preliminary findings with stakeholders, validating the findings, or informing future research. We suggest researchers use preliminary findings from stage five (either in the form of a framework, themes, or list of findings) as a foundation from which to inform the consultation. This will enable stakeholders to build on the evidence and offer a higher level of meaning, content expertise, and perspective to the preliminary findings. We also recommend that researchers clearly articulate the type of stakeholders with whom they wish to consult, how they will collect the data ( e.g ., focus groups, interviews, surveys), and how these data will be analyzed, reported, and integrated within the overall study outcome.

Finally, given that consultation requires researchers to orient stakeholders on the scoping study purpose, research question, preliminary findings, and plans for dissemination, we recommend that this stage additionally be considered a knowledge transfer mechanism. This may address Brien et al .'s [ 5 ] concern about the usefulness of scoping studies for stakeholders and how to translate knowledge about scoping studies. Given the importance of knowledge transfer and exchange in the uptake of research evidence [ 12 , 13 ], the consultation stage can be used to specifically translate the preliminary scoping study findings and develop effective dissemination strategies with stakeholders in the field, offering additional value to a scoping study.

One scoping study included a consultation phase comprised of focus groups and interviews with 28 stakeholders including people living with HIV, researchers, educators, clinicians, and policy makers [ 7 ]. Authors shared preliminary findings from the literature review phase of the scoping study with stakeholders and asked whether they may be able to identify any additional emerging issues related to HIV and rehabilitation not yet published in the evidence. The team proceeded to conduct a second consultation with 17 new and returning stakeholders whereby the team presented a preliminary framework of HIV and rehabilitation research and stakeholders refined the framework to further identify six key research priorities on HIV and rehabilitation. This series of consultations engaged community members in the development of the study outcome and provided opportunities for knowledge transfer about HIV and rehabilitation research. This process offered an ideal mechanism to enhance the validity of the study outcome while translating findings with the community. Nevertheless, further development of steps for undertaking knowledge translation as a part of the scoping study framework is required.

Additional considerations for scoping studies to support the advancement, application, and relevance of scoping studies in health research

Scoping study terminology.

Discrepancies in nomenclature between 'scoping reviews,' 'scoping studies,' 'scoping literature reviews,' and 'scoping exercises' lead to confusion. Despite our collective use of the Arksey and O'Malley framework, two authors (DL, HC) titled their studies as 'scoping reviews' while the other used 'scoping study.' In this paper, we use 'scoping studies' for consistency with Arksey and O'Malley's original framework. Nevertheless, the potential differences (if any) among the terms merit clarification. Lack of a universal definition for scoping studies is also problematic to researchers trying to clearly articulate their reasons for undertaking a scoping study. Finally, we advocate for labeling the methodology as the 'Arksey and O'Malley framework' to provide consistency for future use.

Quality assessment

Another consideration for scoping study methodology is the potential need to assess included studies for methodological quality. Brien et al. [ 5 ] state that this lack of quality assessment makes the results of scoping studies more challenging to interpret. Grant and Booth [ 4 ] imply that a lack of quality assessment limits the uptake of scoping study findings into policy and practice. While our research questions did not directly relate to any quality assessment debate, we recognize the challenges in assessing quality among the vast range of published and grey literature that may be included in scoping studies. This also raises the question of whether and how evidence from stakeholder consultation is evaluated in the scoping study process. It remains unclear whether the lack of quality assessment impacts the uptake and relevance of scoping study findings.

A final consideration for legitimization of scoping study methodology includes the development of a critical appraisal tool for scoping study quality [ 5 ]. Anderson et al. [ 2 ] offer criteria for assessing the value and utility of a commissioned scoping study in health policy contexts, but these criteria are not necessarily applicable to scoping studies in other areas of health research. Developing a critical appraisal tool would require the elements of a methodologically rigorous scoping study to be defined. This could include, but would not be limited to, the minimum level of analysis required and the requirements for reporting results. Overall, the issues surrounding quality assessment of included studies and subsequent scoping studies require further discussion.

Limitations

This paper responds to Arksey and O'Malley's [ 6 ] request for feedback to their proposed methodological framework. However, the recommendations that we propose are derived from our subjective experiences undertaking scoping studies of varying sizes in the rehabilitation field, and we recognize that they may not represent the opinions of all scoping study authors. Other than our individual experiences with our own studies, we have not yet implemented the full framework recommendations. Hence, readers can determine how strongly to interpret and implement these recommendations in their scoping study research. We invite others to trial our recommendations and continue the process of refining and improving this methodology.

Scoping studies present an increasingly popular option for synthesizing health evidence. Brien et al. [ 5 ] argue that guidelines are required to facilitate scoping review reporting and transparency. In this paper, we build on the existing methodological framework for scoping studies outlined by Arksey and O'Malley [ 6 ] and provide recommendations to clarify and enhance each stage, which may increase the consistency with which researchers undertake and report scoping studies. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question; balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process; using an iterative team approach to selecting studies and extracting data; incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis; identifying the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research; and adopting consultation as a required component of scoping study methodology. Ongoing considerations include: establishing a common accepted definition and purpose(s) of scoping studies; defining methodological rigor for the assessment of scoping study quality; debating the need for quality assessment of included studies; and formalizing knowledge translation as a required element of scoping methodology. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

DL and HC conceived of this paper. DL undertook the literature review process. DL, HC and KO developed challenges and recommendations. All authors drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors' information

DL is a physical therapist and doctoral candidate in the School of Rehabilitation Science at McMaster University. HC is an occupational therapist and doctoral candidate in the School of Rehabilitation Science at McMaster University. KO is a clinical epidemiologist, physical therapist, and postdoctoral fellow in the School of Rehabilitation Science at McMaster University. She is also a Lecturer in the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of Toronto.

Acknowledgements

DL is supported by a Doctoral Award from the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program, a strategic training initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the McMaster Child Health Research Institute. HC is supported by a Doctoral Award from the CIHR, the CIHR Quality of Life Strategic Training Program in Rehabilitation Research and the Canadian Occupational Therapy Foundation. KO is supported by a Fellowship from the CIHR, HIV/AIDS Research Program and a Michael DeGroote Postdoctoral Fellowship (McMaster University). The authors acknowledge the helpful feedback of Dr. Cheryl Missiuna on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

• Davis K, Drey N, Gould D. What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009; 46 :1386–1400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res Policy Sys. 2008; 6 :7. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rumrill P, Fitzgerald S, Merchant W. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work. 2010; 35 :399–404. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant M, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009; 26 :91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brien S, Lorenzetti D, Lewis S, Kennedy J, Ghali W. Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implement Sci. 2010; 5 :2. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8 :19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Brien K, Wilkins A, Zack E, Solomon P. Scoping the field: identifying key research priorities in HIV and rehabilitation. AIDS Behav. 2010; 14 :448–458. doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9528-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac D, Wishart L, Missiuna C, Wright V. The application of motor learning strategies within functionally based interventions for children with neuromotor conditions. Peds Phys Ther. 2009; 21 :345–355. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e3181beb09d. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colquhoun H, Letts L, Law M, MacDermid J, Missiuna C. A scoping review of the use of theory in studies of knowledge translation. Can J Occup Ther. in press . [ PubMed ]
• Ehrich K, Freeman G, Richards S, Robinson I, Shepperd S. How to do a scoping exercise: continuity of care. Res Pol Plan. 2002; 20 :25–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15 :1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. doi: 10.1002/chp.47. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of healthcare in the United States? Milbank Q. 2005; 83 :843–895. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00403.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J. In: Studying the organization and delivery of health services: research methods. Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N, editor. London: Routledge; 2001. Synthesising research evidence; p. 194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge Translation. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html

How Do I Scope, Shape and Configure My Research Project?

• First Online: 28 June 2019

Cite this chapter

• Ray Cooksey 3 &
• Gael McDonald 4  

1752 Accesses

In this chapter, we show that in order to make your research feasible and realistically achievable, you need to make scoping and shaping choices, pertaining to the nature of the research activities that you will use to gather the evidence you need and configuring choices, pertaining to the patterns and connections between those research activities. Such choices move you toward the ‘pointy end’ of research where you assemble the evidence you need to address your research questions/hypotheses. Appropriately scoping, shaping and configuring research will typically require adaptations and trade-offs in response to impediments or constraints you experience or can foresee down the track in order to achieve project feasibility. We also argue that you may, in addition, need to build up some type of conceptual framework to help guide your scoping, shaping and configuring activities.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alfawaz, A. (2015). Recruitment and selection practices for female administrative officers in Saudi public sector universities. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW

Google Scholar  

Anderson, B. F., Deane, D. H., Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Shanteau, J. C. (1981). Concepts in judgement and decision making: Definitions, sources, interrelations, comments . New York: Praeger Publishers.

Azorín, J. M., & Cameron, R. (2010). The application of mixed methods in organisational research: A literature review. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8 (2), 95–105.

Braund, M. (2001). Understanding public perceptions of police in the ACT through observations of police-public turf interactions and surveys of the public . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Marketing and Management, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Milton, QLD, Australia: Wiley.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Cooksey, R. W. (2014). Illustrating statistical procedures: Finding meaning in quantitative data (2nd ed.). Prahran, VIC: Tilde University Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cryer, J. D., & Chan, K.-S. (2008). Time series analysis: With applications in R . New York: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fieger, P. (2015). Efficiency and effectiveness in the Australian Technical and Further Education system. unpublished Ed.D. portfolio, UNE Business School, University of New England, NSW.

Fisher, C. (2007). Researching and writing a dissertation: A guidebook for business students (2nd ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 444–461). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Glaser, B. (1992). The basics of grounded theory analysis . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glass, G. V., Willson, V. L., & Gottman, J. N. M. (2008). Design and analysis of time-series experiments . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Gregson, W. (2016). Harnessing sources of innovation, useful knowledge and leadership within a complex public sector agency network: A reflective practice perspective. Unpublished Ph.D.I portfolio, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Harrison, J. (2003). Information scope in small service firms: A comparison of universalistic, contingency and configurational theoretical approaches. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Henryks, J. (2009). Organic foods, choice and consumer context: An exploration of switching behavior . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of Business, Economics and Public Policy, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 602–611.

Article   Google Scholar  

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Kaptchuk, T. J. (2001). The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54 (6), 541–549.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry, 11 (3), 323–350.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Muchiri, M. (2006). Transformational leader behaviours, social processes of leadership and substitutes for leadership and their relationships with employee commitment, organisational efficacy and citizenship behaviours. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, New England Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use . New York: The Guilford Press.

Ross, E. (1999). Academics’ perceptions of university culture and the factors that facilitate or inhibit commitment to it . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Marketing and Management, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Sandall, J. (2006). Navigating pathways through complex systems of interacting problems: Strategic management of native vegetation policy. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, New England Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Smyth, R., & Maxwell, T. W. (2008). The research matrix: An approach to supervision of higher degree research . Milperra, NSW: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9 (2), 221–232.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). The basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . London: Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 285–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wolodko, K. (2017). The emergence of group dynamics from contextualised social processes: A complexity-oriented grounded-theory approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Ray Cooksey

RMIT University Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Gael McDonald

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray Cooksey .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cooksey, R., McDonald, G. (2019). How Do I Scope, Shape and Configure My Research Project?. In: Surviving and Thriving in Postgraduate Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7747-1_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7747-1_12

Published : 28 June 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-13-7746-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-13-7747-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Research guides

Writing a Literature Review

Phase 1: scope of review, it's a literature review of what, precisely.

Need to Have a Precise Topic It is essential that one defines a research topic very carefully. For example, it should not be too far-reaching. The following is much too broad:

"Life and Times of Sigmund Freud"

However, this is more focused and specific and, accordingly, a more appropriate topic:

"An Analysis of the Relationship of Freud and Jung in the International Psychoanalytic Association, 1910-1914"

Limitations of Study In specifying precisely one's research topic, one is also specifying appropriate limitations on the research. Limiting, for example, by time, personnel, gender, age, location, nationality, etc. results in a more focused and meaningful topic.  

Scope of the Literature Review It is also important to determine the precise scope of the literature review. For example,

• What exactly will you cover in your review?
• How comprehensive will it be?
• How long? About how many citations will you use?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?
• Will you broaden your search to seek literature in related disciplines?
• Will you confine your reviewed material to English language only or will you include research in other languages too?

In evaluating studies, timeliness is more significant for some subjects than others. Scientists generally need more recent material. However, currency is often less of a factor for scholars in arts/humanities. Research published in 1920 about Plato's philosophy might be more relevant than recent studies.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Phase 2: Finding Information >>
• Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 2:26 PM
• Subjects: Education , General
• Tags: literature_review , literature_review_in_education

Good review practice: a researcher guide to systematic review methodology in the sciences of food and health

• About this guide
• Part A: Systematic review method
• What are Good Practice points?
• Part C: The core steps of the SR process
• 1.1 Setting eligibility criteria
• 1.2 Identifying search terms
• 1.3 Protocol development
• 2. Searching for studies
• 3. Screening the results
• 4. Evaluation of included studies: quality assessment
• 5. Data extraction
• 6. Data synthesis and summary
• 7. Presenting results
• Links to current versions of the reference guidelines
• Download templates
• Food science databases
• Process management tools
• Screening tools
• Reference management tools
• Grey literature sources
• Links for access to protocol repository and platforms for registration
• Links for access to PRISMA frameworks
• Links for access to 'Risk of Bias' assessment tools for quantitative and qualitative studies
• Links for access to grading checklists
• Links for access to reporting checklists
• What questions are suitable for the systematic review methodology?
• How to assess feasibility of using the method?
• What is a scoping study and how to construct one?
• How to construct a systematic review protocol?
• How to construct a comprehensive search?
• Study designs and levels of evidence
• Download a pdf version This link opens in a new window

Scoping Study

Do you need a scoping study.

A scoping study is usually carried out before a full systematic review, to assess the breath of the research around the topic of interest. It may be used to determine how well the subject is researched and whether there is enough evidence or a real need to conduct a full systematic review. They are also planned to map keywords to relevant concepts and put the research topics in context. Scoping exercises are  not  mandatory and are only planned if there is a need to overview the state of the art for the topic of interest. 

In relevance to systematic reviews, they are widely used to:

• investigate the volume and state of available literature, 
• map concepts, keywords, and policies,
• to narrow down the scope of broad questions and make them suitable for the use of the SR methodology. 

The method of scoping research topics was first developed by the EPPI-Centre to pilot systematic reviews of environmental questions. They were then extended to clinical and social science topics and are gradually being adopted in other scientific disciplines.

How to conduct a scoping study

Scoping studies are descriptive and often not comprehensive, but they provide a roadmap of literature. They follow similar steps to a systematic review process to summarise the state of current research on a topic  without  the need for data extraction, quality assessment or sensitivity analysis. 

A standard framework proposed by Arksey, and O’Malley  [2] is commonly used in clinical and healthcare research. This framework can be adapted and applied in other fields as well.  

It consists of the following 5 steps:     Step 1: Identifying the research question,    Step 2: Identifying relevant studies,     Step 3: Study selection,     Step 4: Charting the data,     Step 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting results.

Identifying the research question : the objective of the review question and the purpose of the scoping study determine which aspects of the study are important and what details are needed to provide an appropriate description. For example, to assess different applications of an intervention, a map of relevant literature to find all subpopulation might be planned.

Identifying relevant studies : regardless of the topic, at least 2 key elements of the research question set the foundation for a scoping study: the population and the outcome of interest. But unlike systematic review questions scoping questions seek to describe important aspects of relevant research. For instance, an intervention question can be centered around “what kind” of interventions have been applied to a particular subject for an outcome of interest.

Study selection : the search strategies of scoping studies are often designed to capture a broader spectrum of literature. As a result, the study selection process often is done at two different levels to manage the volume. First, all irrelevant and out of focus literature are removed by screening through citations or titles and abstracts. Then the screening procedure is followed for the full texts of relevant literature. 

Charting the data : this stage of the scoping method can differ considerably based on the purpose. These details can include study characteristics, details of the populations, type and volume of relevant primary studies, details of various concepts and topics, etc. 

Collating, summarising, and reporting results : The presentation formats are also guided by the purpose of the scoping review and often consist of tabulated forms that are used to organise and chart the data accordingly. When inputs or agreements from different field experts are needed, an optional consultation step is sometimes carried out in the end.

Good practice point : For the purpose of good practice this stage should be managed by at least 2 reviewers to make sure all relevant literatures are included.  If the scoping review is intended for publication, a  protocol  should be developed before undertaking it, to outline the methods and objectives. 

Links to access examples of scoping studies

• << Previous: How to assess feasibility of using the method?
• Next: How to construct a systematic review protocol? >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 6:08 PM
• URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/systematic_reviews

• CREd Library , Planning, Managing, and Publishing Research

How Do I Determine an Appropriate Scope, Size, and Topic for My Research Project?

Part 2 of 8 in the "preparing for your first nih grant" series looks at fitting your idea to the grant mechanism, your background, available resources, and the current stream of science., christopher moore, doi: doi:10.1044/cred-pvd-path013.

The following is a transcript of the presentation video, edited for clarity.

Your Project Must Fit Your Funding Target

The first thing to wrap your mind around is that the project has to be appropriate in size and scope. You’re a new researcher. You have a limited background because you’re new. You probably have limited resources because you’re new to your university and they didn’t give you all the startup you asked for. So it has to be appropriate in size.

It has to be ready to go. Lab space, target population, research team — everything has to be in place. The grant is not to get things in place. The grant is to pay for things that are ready to launch.

It has to be demonstrably feasible. This is hugely important.

Demonstrably feasible. For an R03 things have to happen very fast. For a two- or three-year award, you can’t waste the first six months getting geared up. That’s not what they want to see. It has to be demonstrably feasible for quick recruitment, data acquisition, analysis, and write-up. You want a product in three years.

A five-year project, on the other hand, for an R01, if that’s what you’re working on. That’s a much larger budget. Not only is it a much longer time, but it’s a much larger budget. It’s going to have a much larger team, and it should be sufficiently complex, well planned, and conceptually deep to warrant this kind of large commitment. You really have to show you know what you’re doing organizationally as well as scientifically.

For training or career development mechanisms – if you’re going to be working on an F32 or a K award — K99/R00, K08, K03, K21, K23, all of those are possibilities — then the research plan has to have real training potential. It has to take you to a new place. That has to be a place that your sponsor can take you better than anybody else. This is the best person on the planet to train you in these new techniques, in a well-funded environment that’s already doing all of that stuff, and it builds perfectly on your own background.

Depending on what the mechanism is, the aims for your grant project are doing different things. That’s all this slide is supposed to tell you. You have to make sure you know what you’re writing for. What’s your objective?

Innovating Within the Framework

I want you to look at this part: Innovating within the framework. This is history and philosophy of science. They don’t teach Thomas Kuhn anymore. Thomas Kuhn had this idea that’s really relevant to a lot of what we do. Normal science is the incremental things that we’re all just contributing. We’re all cogs in a wheel. We’re just all grinding toward the same solution. Human Genome Project was the perfect example — it took way more than a village. It was millions of people working on this project. Literally millions of people. That’s normal science. Everybody is contributing what they do.

Then comes along something revolutionary in science. Which is mostly what young investigators really aspire to do, and that’s to take the paradigm and change directions. You’re thinking about things in a whole new way. We all want to do that. And you think that’s what grant reviewers are looking for. But it’s not what they’re looking for. They don’t trust you to do that.

This is an important point. What reviewers want you to do, is they want you to be right at the fence line where you’re just sort of leaning against the fence. You know, walking the fence line — like, if you’re a cowboy, you ride the fence line and make sure the fence is intact and keeps all the little dogies inside — that’s where you want to work. You don’t want to be deep inside the safe zone of the known universe. But you don’t want to be outside the fence line, either, working without the support of known science, known concepts, known phenomena.

You feel like science is enormous, and you can work anywhere you want. But in grant-world you can work in this little narrow strip. You’re going to take the existing body of knowledge, and you’re just going to make it a little bit larger, as much as one lab can. You have to be a little bit safe, but you have to be a little bit innovative and you have to push a little bit.

There’s a sweet spot there. That’s what you’re looking for. What helps you find that spot is looking at your unique talents. Your unique talents come from your training. You train in a lab with a person who has their own unique talents, and they give you your own capabilities. You’ve done dissertations that define and have sharpened your talents. You have things that you bring uniquely to this problem. You have to recognize those right at the beginning and exploit those. This isn’t the time to go do something brand new. This is the time to recognize why you’re in the unique position to address this feasible fence line.

So, be aware of what you bring to the problem when you’re starting to work on your grants and starting to work on what your project is.

Getting Ready to Think About Starting to Approach the Concept of a Notion Regarding the Suggestion of Your Idea

Your demonstrated strengths. The first part of your assessment. What do you bring? What’s your demonstrated preparation? Not “what are you really good at?” What are you demonstrably good at? What have you published in? What was your dissertation in? The claims that you make have little to do with your demonstrated strengths and preparation. What can you show?

The most important thing you can do is identify something you can demonstrate as being feasible. So, for new investigators, one of the biggest problems you’ll run up against is you’ll propose something that might be a great idea, but reviewers decide it’s not feasible. Either because you don’t have the preparation or you don’t have the training or whatever. But maybe it’s just because they don’t believe you because you haven’t demonstrated it. You have to show that it’s feasible. You have to provide evidence that says, “Oh yes, I can do this experiment. I’ve run this protocol, I have these streams of subjects, I have letters of support that say they are all lined up. The lab I have is appropriately equipped. Everything you claim to need is in place, including your own capabilities.

And maybe most importantly in terms of feasibility is if you don’t have the expertise yourself, you have the expertise in terms of support of other key personnel. That’s your team. Your demonstrable team. You can claim a team all day long, but you need to demonstrate the logistical connections of that team. The best way to demonstrate a connected team is that you’ve published together. But you’re brand new, and putting together a team in time to publish in time to submit something is ridiculous. It’s never going to happen if you wait that long. But you can have lab meetings. You can participate in journal clubs, you can have regular meetings that you can document. You can present to each other’s journal clubs or colloquia. You can co-present in conference presentations that you put together. There are ways to show that you interact with people that are part of your team. That’s important to do.

You’ve already heard this idea of understanding what your scientific area is and how your idea fits into that. This is recognition of your place in the scientific context.

One of the most difficult problems for new investigators is the scope of your idea. The number one and most damaging concern that reviewers will lead with — and if the primary reviewer utters this word, you’re all done — and that word is “overambitious.”

You go into this project and you feel so compelled to show that you can do it. And you want to give added value, like “I’m only going to charge you $300,000 for this, but I’m going to give you $400,000 worth of effort.” That’s not compelling. What’s compelling is that you know exactly what you’re doing. And that what you’re proposing is not only feasible, but you know so much about it that you’ve actually proposed exactly the right amount of work for this amount of time. You know exactly how long it takes to run subject, how long it takes to process their data, how long it takes to do the analysis and write it up. Getting all of that stuff done, knowing that much about your work and having preliminary data that support that will guide you to something has an appropriate breadth.

The most important thing is guidance from your program officer. It is the program officer’s job to talk to you and provide guidance. You can have a 15, 10-minute conversation with your program officer that will completely change or completely form what you’re going to do in terms of seeking support for your research. We’re sort of afraid to reveal our naïveté to the program officer, I guess, so you’re worried about making that call. People often — more than often, way too often — people send in applications without ever contacting their program officer.

None of you will ever make the mistake of not contacting your program officer ever again. Because I’m going to tell you how to do this.

You’ve identified the program officer associated with your program. If you’re in language disorders, that’s Judith Cooper. If you’re in speech disorders, that’s Lana Shekim. If you’re in hearing it’s Amy Donahue — or quite a few other possibilities. You identify who is your program officer. That’s not a hard thing to do, trolling through the websites. You send that person a three-line email. And it says, “I’m interested the possibility of applying to your institute for support. Would you have 10 minutes to talk? Here’s a whole bunch of times that I’m available.” That’s all that email says. Then you get 15 minutes with that person on the phone, at a scheduled time. You’re ready for them with your specific aims. Maybe you’re going to send it to them right away after your conversation. And you’re going to find out if the mechanism you’re applying for is appropriate, if the institute you’re targeting is appropriate. Maybe they will even give you guidance on which study section you might like to recommend to the review officers. You can accomplish some really important things in 15 minutes, and why people wouldn’t do it, I don’t know. What you’ll never succeed at is calling the phone numbers they give on the website. You will never reach them at that phone number. Set up a phone appointment, and make it a short email. Do you understand what you have to do there? I do not want to let that go past. That’s the most important thing I have to tell you.

Choosing Your Topic

So we got this already. Stick with your strengths and your proven history. Not a time to try new techniques. An approach for which you can provide published evidence that you and your team are experienced and capable. That doesn’t mean that you and your team actually generated that published evidence. I’m talking about just having published, peer-reviewed support.

Think creatively. Be innovative. And keep an eye on the big picture. But also be aware of the fact that you are only one lab, and it’s a big field, and what’s an appropriate size for your project.

Recognize the place of your work in the overall framework. What are you trained to do? Where are you best capable of contributing?

What that does is puts you solidly in the stream of ideas, not just of your group, but of your peers. Of science generally. It’s interesting how often this happens — people will often lead their specific aims with the idea that there’s a “paucity of information” or a paucity of literature in this area. As if that is some kind of motivation for this study. The reason nobody is doing work in that area is because there’s no reason to work in that area. Or because it’s just too uninteresting. Or it’s not going to help anybody. Or it’s too expensive. Or it’s a dumb idea. There are lots of good reasons not to do work in an area. And there’s very few reason to do work in that area.

If you find yourself working on something where your best motivation is a paucity of other investigators working there, you should really look around and see if other people have something figured out that you haven’t figured out. Or maybe it really is an important area, and maybe you just don’t know the literature. We have a small discipline. So our literature isn’t huge. Maybe the literature that influences your science isn’t in your immediate neighborhood. Maybe there’s really great work. It’s just not where you would exactly expect to find it in the speech section of JSLHR. That might not be what’s motivating your work.

The point is, there has to be a solid stream, a dynamic series of experiments and scientific work where you can put yourself right in the middle of it. If you can’t do that, there’s something wrong. Something seriously wrong. Don’t do that.

Preparing for Your First NIH Grant: More Videos in This Series

1. Who Is the Target Audience for Your Grant?

2. How Do I Determine an Appropriate Scope, Size, and Topic for My Research Project?

3. Common Challenges and Problems in Constructing Specific Aims

4. Are You Ready to Write Your First NIH Grant? Really?

5. Demystifying the Logistics of the Grant Application Process

6. Identifying Time and Budgetary Commitments for Your Research Project

7. Anatomy of the SF424: A Formula for NIH Research Grants

8. Common Strengths and Weaknesses in Grant Applications

Christopher Moore Boston University

Selected clips from sessions presented at Pathways (2014 and 2015). Hosted by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Research Mentoring Network.

Pathways is sponsored by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through a U24 grant awarded to ASHA.

Copyrighted Material. Reproduced by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association in the Clinical Research Education Library with permission from the author or presenter.

Clinical Research Education

More from the cred library, innovative treatments for persons with dementia, implementation science resources for crisp, when the ears interact with the brain, follow asha journals on twitter.

© 1997-2024 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Privacy Notice Terms of Use

• Privacy Policy

Home » Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Delimitations

Definition:

Delimitations refer to the specific boundaries or limitations that are set in a research study in order to narrow its scope and focus. Delimitations may be related to a variety of factors, including the population being studied, the geographical location, the time period, the research design , and the methods or tools being used to collect data .

The Importance of Delimitations in Research Studies

Here are some reasons why delimitations are important in research studies:

• Provide focus : Delimitations help researchers focus on a specific area of interest and avoid getting sidetracked by tangential topics. By setting clear boundaries, researchers can concentrate their efforts on the most relevant and significant aspects of the research question.
• Increase validity : Delimitations ensure that the research is more valid by defining the boundaries of the study. When researchers establish clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion, they can better control for extraneous variables that might otherwise confound the results.
• Improve generalizability : Delimitations help researchers determine the extent to which their findings can be generalized to other populations or contexts. By specifying the sample size, geographic region, time frame, or other relevant factors, researchers can provide more accurate estimates of the generalizability of their results.
• Enhance feasibility : Delimitations help researchers identify the resources and time required to complete the study. By setting realistic parameters, researchers can ensure that the study is feasible and can be completed within the available time and resources.
• Clarify scope: Delimitations help readers understand the scope of the research project. By explicitly stating what is included and excluded, researchers can avoid confusion and ensure that readers understand the boundaries of the study.

Types of Delimitations in Research

Here are some types of delimitations in research and their significance:

Time Delimitations

This type of delimitation refers to the time frame in which the research will be conducted. Time delimitations are important because they help to narrow down the scope of the study and ensure that the research is feasible within the given time constraints.

Geographical Delimitations

Geographical delimitations refer to the geographic boundaries within which the research will be conducted. These delimitations are significant because they help to ensure that the research is relevant to the intended population or location.

Population Delimitations

Population delimitations refer to the specific group of people that the research will focus on. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the research is targeted to a specific group, which can improve the accuracy of the results.

Data Delimitations

Data delimitations refer to the specific types of data that will be used in the research. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the data is relevant to the research question and that the research is conducted using reliable and valid data sources.

Scope Delimitations

Scope delimitations refer to the specific aspects or dimensions of the research that will be examined. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the research is focused and that the findings are relevant to the research question.

How to Write Delimitations

In order to write delimitations in research, you can follow these steps:

• Identify the scope of your study : Determine the extent of your research by defining its boundaries. This will help you to identify the areas that are within the scope of your research and those that are outside of it.
• Determine the time frame : Decide on the time period that your research will cover. This could be a specific period, such as a year, or it could be a general time frame, such as the last decade.
• I dentify the population : Determine the group of people or objects that your study will focus on. This could be a specific age group, gender, profession, or geographic location.
• Establish the sample size : Determine the number of participants that your study will involve. This will help you to establish the number of people you need to recruit for your study.
• Determine the variables: Identify the variables that will be measured in your study. This could include demographic information, attitudes, behaviors, or other factors.
• Explain the limitations : Clearly state the limitations of your study. This could include limitations related to time, resources, sample size, or other factors that may impact the validity of your research.
• Justify the limitations : Explain why these limitations are necessary for your research. This will help readers understand why certain factors were excluded from the study.

When to Write Delimitations in Research

Here are some situations when you may need to write delimitations in research:

• When defining the scope of the study: Delimitations help to define the boundaries of your research by specifying what is and what is not included in your study. For instance, you may delimit your study by focusing on a specific population, geographic region, time period, or research methodology.
• When addressing limitations: Delimitations can also be used to address the limitations of your research. For example, if your data is limited to a certain timeframe or geographic area, you can include this information in your delimitations to help readers understand the limitations of your findings.
• When justifying the relevance of the study : Delimitations can also help you to justify the relevance of your research. For instance, if you are conducting a study on a specific population or region, you can explain why this group or area is important and how your research will contribute to the understanding of this topic.
• When clarifying the research question or hypothesis : Delimitations can also be used to clarify your research question or hypothesis. By specifying the boundaries of your study, you can ensure that your research question or hypothesis is focused and specific.
• When establishing the context of the study : Finally, delimitations can help you to establish the context of your research. By providing information about the scope and limitations of your study, you can help readers to understand the context in which your research was conducted and the implications of your findings.

Examples of Delimitations in Research

Examples of Delimitations in Research are as follows:

Research Title : “Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Cybersecurity Threat Detection”

Delimitations :

• The study will focus solely on the use of artificial intelligence in detecting and mitigating cybersecurity threats.
• The study will only consider the impact of AI on threat detection and not on other aspects of cybersecurity such as prevention, response, or recovery.
• The research will be limited to a specific type of cybersecurity threats, such as malware or phishing attacks, rather than all types of cyber threats.
• The study will only consider the use of AI in a specific industry, such as finance or healthcare, rather than examining its impact across all industries.
• The research will only consider AI-based threat detection tools that are currently available and widely used, rather than including experimental or theoretical AI models.

Research Title: “The Effects of Social Media on Academic Performance: A Case Study of College Students”

Delimitations:

• The study will focus only on college students enrolled in a particular university.
• The study will only consider social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
• The study will only analyze the academic performance of students based on their GPA and course grades.
• The study will not consider the impact of other factors such as student demographics, socioeconomic status, or other factors that may affect academic performance.
• The study will only use self-reported data from students, rather than objective measures of their social media usage or academic performance.

Purpose of Delimitations

Some Purposes of Delimitations are as follows:

• Focusing the research : By defining the scope of the study, delimitations help researchers to narrow down their research questions and focus on specific aspects of the topic. This allows for a more targeted and meaningful study.
• Clarifying the research scope : Delimitations help to clarify the boundaries of the research, which helps readers to understand what is and is not included in the study.
• Avoiding scope creep : Delimitations help researchers to stay focused on their research objectives and avoid being sidetracked by tangential issues or data.
• Enhancing the validity of the study : By setting clear boundaries, delimitations help to ensure that the study is valid and reliable.
• Improving the feasibility of the study : Delimitations help researchers to ensure that their study is feasible and can be conducted within the time and resources available.

Applications of Delimitations

Here are some common applications of delimitations:

• Geographic delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific geographic area, such as a particular city, state, or country. This helps to narrow the focus of the study and makes it more manageable.
• Time delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific time period, such as a decade, a year, or a specific date range. This can be useful for studying trends over time or for comparing data from different time periods.
• Population delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific population, such as a particular age group, gender, or ethnic group. This can help to ensure that the study is relevant to the population being studied.
• Data delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to specific types of data, such as survey responses, interviews, or archival records. This can help to ensure that the study is based on reliable and relevant data.
• Conceptual delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to specific concepts or variables, such as only studying the effects of a particular treatment on a specific outcome. This can help to ensure that the study is focused and clear.

Advantages of Delimitations

Some Advantages of Delimitations are as follows:

• Helps to focus the study: Delimitations help to narrow down the scope of the research and identify specific areas that need to be investigated. This helps to focus the study and ensures that the research is not too broad or too narrow.
• Defines the study population: Delimitations can help to define the population that will be studied. This can include age range, gender, geographical location, or any other factors that are relevant to the research. This helps to ensure that the study is more specific and targeted.
• Provides clarity: Delimitations help to provide clarity about the research study. By identifying the boundaries and limitations of the research, it helps to avoid confusion and ensures that the research is more understandable.
• Improves validity: Delimitations can help to improve the validity of the research by ensuring that the study is more focused and specific. This can help to ensure that the research is more accurate and reliable.
• Reduces bias: Delimitations can help to reduce bias by limiting the scope of the research. This can help to ensure that the research is more objective and unbiased.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Jump to DSE Guide

Purpose statement overview.

The purpose statement succinctly explains (on no more than 1 page) the objectives of the research study. These objectives must directly address the problem and help close the stated gap. Expressed as a formula:

Good purpose statements:

• Flow from the problem statement and actually address the proposed problem
• Are concise and clear
• Answer the question ‘Why are you doing this research?’
• Match the methodology (similar to research questions)
• Have a ‘hook’ to get the reader’s attention
• Set the stage by clearly stating, “The purpose of this (qualitative or quantitative) study is to ...

In PhD studies, the purpose usually involves applying a theory to solve the problem. In other words, the purpose tells the reader what the goal of the study is, and what your study will accomplish, through which theoretical lens. The purpose statement also includes brief information about direction, scope, and where the data will come from.

A problem and gap in combination can lead to different research objectives, and hence, different purpose statements. In the example from above where the problem was severe underrepresentation of female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies and the identified gap related to lack of research of male-dominated boards; one purpose might be to explore implicit biases in male-dominated boards through the lens of feminist theory. Another purpose may be to determine how board members rated female and male candidates on scales of competency, professionalism, and experience to predict which candidate will be selected for the CEO position. The first purpose may involve a qualitative ethnographic study in which the researcher observes board meetings and hiring interviews; the second may involve a quantitative regression analysis. The outcomes will be very different, so it’s important that you find out exactly how you want to address a problem and help close a gap!

The purpose of the study must not only align with the problem and address a gap; it must also align with the chosen research method. In fact, the DP/DM template requires you to name the  research method at the very beginning of the purpose statement. The research verb must match the chosen method. In general, quantitative studies involve “closed-ended” research verbs such as determine , measure , correlate , explain , compare , validate , identify , or examine ; whereas qualitative studies involve “open-ended” research verbs such as explore , understand , narrate , articulate [meanings], discover , or develop .

A qualitative purpose statement following the color-coded problem statement (assumed here to be low well-being among financial sector employees) + gap (lack of research on followers of mid-level managers), might start like this:

In response to declining levels of employee well-being, the purpose of the qualitative phenomenology was to explore and understand the lived experiences related to the well-being of the followers of novice mid-level managers in the financial services industry. The levels of follower well-being have been shown to correlate to employee morale, turnover intention, and customer orientation (Eren et al., 2013). A combined framework of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory and the employee well-being concept informed the research questions and supported the inquiry, analysis, and interpretation of the experiences of followers of novice managers in the financial services industry.

A quantitative purpose statement for the same problem and gap might start like this:

In response to declining levels of employee well-being, the purpose of the quantitative correlational study was to determine which leadership factors predict employee well-being of the followers of novice mid-level managers in the financial services industry. Leadership factors were measured by the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) assessment framework  by Mantlekow (2015), and employee well-being was conceptualized as a compound variable consisting of self-reported turnover-intent and psychological test scores from the Mental Health Survey (MHS) developed by Johns Hopkins University researchers.

Both of these purpose statements reflect viable research strategies and both align with the problem and gap so it’s up to the researcher to design a study in a manner that reflects personal preferences and desired study outcomes. Note that the quantitative research purpose incorporates operationalized concepts  or variables ; that reflect the way the researcher intends to measure the key concepts under study; whereas the qualitative purpose statement isn’t about translating the concepts under study as variables but instead aim to explore and understand the core research phenomenon.  

Best Practices for Writing your Purpose Statement

Always keep in mind that the dissertation process is iterative, and your writing, over time, will be refined as clarity is gradually achieved. Most of the time, greater clarity for the purpose statement and other components of the Dissertation is the result of a growing understanding of the literature in the field. As you increasingly master the literature you will also increasingly clarify the purpose of your study.

The purpose statement should flow directly from the problem statement. There should be clear and obvious alignment between the two and that alignment will get tighter and more pronounced as your work progresses.

The purpose statement should specifically address the reason for conducting the study, with emphasis on the word specifically. There should not be any doubt in your readers’ minds as to the purpose of your study. To achieve this level of clarity you will need to also insure there is no doubt in your mind as to the purpose of your study.

Many researchers benefit from stopping your work during the research process when insight strikes you and write about it while it is still fresh in your mind. This can help you clarify all aspects of a dissertation, including clarifying its purpose.

Your Chair and your committee members can help you to clarify your study’s purpose so carefully attend to any feedback they offer.

The purpose statement should reflect the research questions and vice versa. The chain of alignment that began with the research problem description and continues on to the research purpose, research questions, and methodology must be respected at all times during dissertation development. You are to succinctly describe the overarching goal of the study that reflects the research questions. Each research question narrows and focuses the purpose statement. Conversely, the purpose statement encompasses all of the research questions.

Identify in the purpose statement the research method as quantitative, qualitative or mixed (i.e., “The purpose of this [qualitative/quantitative/mixed] study is to ...)

Avoid the use of the phrase “research study” since the two words together are redundant.

Follow the initial declaration of purpose with a brief overview of how, with what instruments/data, with whom and where (as applicable) the study will be conducted. Identify variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea. Since this section is to be a concise paragraph, emphasis must be placed on the word brief. However, adding these details will give your readers a very clear picture of the purpose of your research.

Developing the purpose section of your dissertation is usually not achieved in a single flash of insight. The process involves a great deal of reading to find out what other scholars have done to address the research topic and problem you have identified. The purpose section of your dissertation could well be the most important paragraph you write during your academic career, and every word should be carefully selected. Think of it as the DNA of your dissertation. Everything else you write should emerge directly and clearly from your purpose statement. In turn, your purpose statement should emerge directly and clearly from your research problem description. It is good practice to print out your problem statement and purpose statement and keep them in front of you as you work on each part of your dissertation in order to insure alignment.

It is helpful to collect several dissertations similar to the one you envision creating. Extract the problem descriptions and purpose statements of other dissertation authors and compare them in order to sharpen your thinking about your own work.  Comparing how other dissertation authors have handled the many challenges you are facing can be an invaluable exercise. Keep in mind that individual universities use their own tailored protocols for presenting key components of the dissertation so your review of these purpose statements should focus on content rather than form.

Once your purpose statement is set it must be consistently presented throughout the dissertation. This may require some recursive editing because the way you articulate your purpose may evolve as you work on various aspects of your dissertation. Whenever you make an adjustment to your purpose statement you should carefully follow up on the editing and conceptual ramifications throughout the entire document.

In establishing your purpose you should NOT advocate for a particular outcome. Research should be done to answer questions not prove a point. As a researcher, you are to inquire with an open mind, and even when you come to the work with clear assumptions, your job is to prove the validity of the conclusions reached. For example, you would not say the purpose of your research project is to demonstrate that there is a relationship between two variables. Such a statement presupposes you know the answer before your research is conducted and promotes or supports (advocates on behalf of) a particular outcome. A more appropriate purpose statement would be to examine or explore the relationship between two variables.

Your purpose statement should not imply that you are going to prove something. You may be surprised to learn that we cannot prove anything in scholarly research for two reasons. First, in quantitative analyses, statistical tests calculate the probability that something is true rather than establishing it as true. Second, in qualitative research, the study can only purport to describe what is occurring from the perspective of the participants. Whether or not the phenomenon they are describing is true in a larger context is not knowable. We cannot observe the phenomenon in all settings and in all circumstances.

Writing your Purpose Statement

It is important to distinguish in your mind the differences between the Problem Statement and Purpose Statement.

The Problem Statement is why I am doing the research

The Purpose Statement is what type of research I am doing to fit or address the problem

The Purpose Statement includes:

• Method of Study
• Specific Population

Remember, as you are contemplating what to include in your purpose statement and then when you are writing it, the purpose statement is a concise paragraph that describes the intent of the study, and it should flow directly from the problem statement.  It should specifically address the reason for conducting the study, and reflect the research questions.  Further, it should identify the research method as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed.  Then provide a brief overview of how the study will be conducted, with what instruments/data collection methods, and with whom (subjects) and where (as applicable). Finally, you should identify variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea.

Qualitative Purpose Statement

Creswell (2002) suggested for writing purpose statements in qualitative research include using deliberate phrasing to alert the reader to the purpose statement. Verbs that indicate what will take place in the research and the use of non-directional language that do not suggest an outcome are key. A purpose statement should focus on a single idea or concept, with a broad definition of the idea or concept. How the concept was investigated should also be included, as well as participants in the study and locations for the research to give the reader a sense of with whom and where the study took place. 

Creswell (2003) advised the following script for purpose statements in qualitative research:

“The purpose of this qualitative_________________ (strategy of inquiry, such as ethnography, case study, or other type) study is (was? will be?) to ________________ (understand? describe? develop? discover?) the _________________(central phenomenon being studied) for ______________ (the participants, such as the individual, groups, organization) at __________(research site). At this stage in the research, the __________ (central phenomenon being studied) will be generally defined as ___________________ (provide a general definition)” (pg. 90).

Quantitative Purpose Statement

Creswell (2003) offers vast differences between the purpose statements written for qualitative research and those written for quantitative research, particularly with respect to language and the inclusion of variables. The comparison of variables is often a focus of quantitative research, with the variables distinguishable by either the temporal order or how they are measured. As with qualitative research purpose statements, Creswell (2003) recommends the use of deliberate language to alert the reader to the purpose of the study, but quantitative purpose statements also include the theory or conceptual framework guiding the study and the variables that are being studied and how they are related. 

Creswell (2003) suggests the following script for drafting purpose statements in quantitative research:

“The purpose of this _____________________ (experiment? survey?) study is (was? will be?) to test the theory of _________________that _________________ (compares? relates?) the ___________(independent variable) to _________________________(dependent variable), controlling for _______________________ (control variables) for ___________________ (participants) at _________________________ (the research site). The independent variable(s) _____________________ will be generally defined as _______________________ (provide a general definition). The dependent variable(s) will be generally defined as _____________________ (provide a general definition), and the control and intervening variables(s), _________________ (identify the control and intervening variables) will be statistically controlled in this study” (pg. 97).

Sample Purpose Statements

• The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine how participation in service-learning in an alternative school impacted students academically, civically, and personally.  There is ample evidence demonstrating the failure of schools for students at-risk; however, there is still a need to demonstrate why these students are successful in non-traditional educational programs like the service-learning model used at TDS.  This study was unique in that it examined one alternative school’s approach to service-learning in a setting where students not only serve, but faculty serve as volunteer teachers.  The use of a constructivist approach in service-learning in an alternative school setting was examined in an effort to determine whether service-learning participation contributes positively to academic, personal, and civic gain for students, and to examine student and teacher views regarding the overall outcomes of service-learning.  This study was completed using an ethnographic approach that included observations, content analysis, and interviews with teachers at The David School.
• The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional linear multiple regression design was to investigate the relationship among early childhood teachers’ self-reported assessment of multicultural awareness as measured by responses from the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (TMAS) and supervisors’ observed assessment of teachers’ multicultural competency skills as measured by the Multicultural Teaching Competency Scale (MTCS) survey. Demographic data such as number of multicultural training hours, years teaching in Dubai, curriculum program at current school, and age were also examined and their relationship to multicultural teaching competency. The study took place in the emirate of Dubai where there were 14,333 expatriate teachers employed in private schools (KHDA, 2013b).
• The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental study is to examine the degree to which stages of change, gender, acculturation level and trauma types predicts the reluctance of Arab refugees, aged 18 and over, in the Dearborn, MI area, to seek professional help for their mental health needs. This study will utilize four instruments to measure these variables: University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA: DiClemente & Hughes, 1990); Cumulative Trauma Scale (Kira, 2012); Acculturation Rating Scale for Arabic Americans-II Arabic and English (ARSAA-IIA, ARSAA-IIE: Jadalla & Lee, 2013), and a demographic survey. This study will examine 1) the relationship between stages of change, gender, acculturation levels, and trauma types and Arab refugees’ help-seeking behavior, 2) the degree to which any of these variables can predict Arab refugee help-seeking behavior.  Additionally, the outcome of this study could provide researchers and clinicians with a stage-based model, TTM, for measuring Arab refugees’ help-seeking behavior and lay a foundation for how TTM can help target the clinical needs of Arab refugees. Lastly, this attempt to apply the TTM model to Arab refugees’ condition could lay the foundation for future research to investigate the application of TTM to clinical work among refugee populations.
• The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study is to describe the lived experiences of LLM for 10 EFL learners in rural Guatemala and to utilize that data to determine how it conforms to, or possibly challenges, current theoretical conceptions of LLM. In accordance with Morse’s (1994) suggestion that a phenomenological study should utilize at least six participants, this study utilized semi-structured interviews with 10 EFL learners to explore why and how they have experienced the motivation to learn English throughout their lives. The methodology of horizontalization was used to break the interview protocols into individual units of meaning before analyzing these units to extract the overarching themes (Moustakas, 1994). These themes were then interpreted into a detailed description of LLM as experienced by EFL students in this context. Finally, the resulting description was analyzed to discover how these learners’ lived experiences with LLM conformed with and/or diverged from current theories of LLM.
• The purpose of this qualitative, embedded, multiple case study was to examine how both parent-child attachment relationships are impacted by the quality of the paternal and maternal caregiver-child interactions that occur throughout a maternal deployment, within the context of dual-military couples. In order to examine this phenomenon, an embedded, multiple case study was conducted, utilizing an attachment systems metatheory perspective. The study included four dual-military couples who experienced a maternal deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) when they had at least one child between 8 weeks-old to 5 years-old.  Each member of the couple participated in an individual, semi-structured interview with the researcher and completed the Parenting Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ). “The PRQ is designed to capture a parent’s perspective on the parent-child relationship” (Pearson, 2012, para. 1) and was used within the proposed study for this purpose. The PRQ was utilized to triangulate the data (Bekhet & Zauszniewski, 2012) as well as to provide some additional information on the parents’ perspective of the quality of the parent-child attachment relationship in regards to communication, discipline, parenting confidence, relationship satisfaction, and time spent together (Pearson, 2012). The researcher utilized the semi-structured interview to collect information regarding the parents' perspectives of the quality of their parental caregiver behaviors during the deployment cycle, the mother's parent-child interactions while deployed, the behavior of the child or children at time of reunification, and the strategies or behaviors the parents believe may have contributed to their child's behavior at the time of reunification. The results of this study may be utilized by the military, and by civilian providers, to develop proactive and preventive measures that both providers and parents can implement, to address any potential adverse effects on the parent-child attachment relationship, identified through the proposed study. The results of this study may also be utilized to further refine and understand the integration of attachment theory and systems theory, in both clinical and research settings, within the field of marriage and family therapy.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Problem Statement
• Next: Conceptual Framework >>
• Last Updated: May 16, 2024 8:25 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education

• Anna Romanova   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1118-1604 1 ,
• Claire Touchie 1 ,
• Sydney Ruller 2 ,
• Victoria Cole 3 &
• Susan Humphrey-Murto 4  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  131 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The current paradigm of competency-based medical education and learner-centredness requires learners to take an active role in their training. However, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is hindered by the fragmented nature of many medical training programs. Attempts to bridge this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through learner handover have been controversial. Learning plans are an alternate educational tool that helps trainees identify their learning needs and facilitate longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. Informed by self-regulated learning theory, learning plans may be the answer to track trainees’ progress along their learning trajectory. The purpose of this study is to summarise the literature regarding learning plan use specifically in undergraduate medical education and explore the student’s role in all stages of learning plan development and implementation.

Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, a scoping review will be conducted to explore the use of learning plans in undergraduate medical education. Literature searches will be conducted using multiple databases by a librarian with expertise in scoping reviews. Through an iterative process, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and a data extraction form refined. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analyses.

By summarising the literature on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education, this study aims to better understand how to support self-regulated learning in undergraduate medical education. The results from this project will inform future scholarly work in competency-based medical education at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback and supporting learners at all levels of competence.

Scoping review registration:

Open Science Framework osf.io/wvzbx.

Peer Review reports

Competency-based medical education (CBME) has transformed the approach to medical education to focus on demonstration of acquired competencies rather than time-based completion of rotations [ 1 ]. As a result, undergraduate and graduate medical training programs worldwide have adopted outcomes-based assessments in the form of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) comprised of competencies to be met [ 2 ]. These assessments are completed longitudinally by multiple different evaluators to generate an overall impression of a learner’s competency.

In CBME, trainees will progress along their learning trajectory at individual speeds and some may excel while others struggle to achieve the required knowledge, skills or attitudes. Therefore, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is required. However, due to the fragmented nature of many medical training programs where learners rotate through different rotations and work with many supervisors, longitudinal observation is similarly fragmented. This makes it difficult to determine where trainees are on their learning trajectories and can affect the quality of feedback provided to them, which is a known major influencer of academic achievement [ 3 ]. As a result, struggling learners may not be identified until late in their training and the growth of high-performing learners may be stifled [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Bridging this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through some form of learner handover or forward feeding has been debated since the 1970s and continues to this day [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. The goal of learner handover is to improve trainee assessment and feedback by sharing their performance and learning needs between supervisors or across rotations. However, several concerns have been raised about this approach including that it could inappropriately bias subsequent assessments of the learner’s abilities [ 9 , 11 , 12 ]. A different approach to keeping track of trainees’ learning goals and progress along their learning trajectories is required. Learning plans (LPs) informed by self-regulated learning (SRL) theory may be the answer.

SRL has been defined as a cyclical process where learners actively control their thoughts, actions and motivation to achieve their goals [ 13 ]. Several models of SRL exist but all entail that the trainee is responsible for setting, planning, executing, monitoring and reflecting on their learning goals [ 13 ]. According to Zimmerman’s SRL model, this process occurs in three stages: forethought phase before an activity, performance phase during an activity and self-reflection phase after an activity [ 13 ]. Since each trainee leads their own learning process and has an individual trajectory towards competence, this theory relates well to the CBME paradigm which is grounded in learner-centredness [ 1 ]. However, we know that medical students and residents have difficulty identifying their own learning goals and therefore need guidance to effectively partake in SRL [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Motivation has also emerged as a key component of SRL, and numerous studies have explored factors that influence student engagement in learning [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition to meeting their basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence, perceived learning relevance through meaningful learning activities has been shown to increase trainee engagement in their learning [ 19 ].

LPs are a well-known tool across many educational fields including CBME that can provide trainees with meaningful learning activities since they help them direct their own learning goals in a guided fashion [ 20 ]. Also known as personal learning plans, learning contracts, personal action plans, personal development plans, and learning goals, LPs are documents that outline the learner’s roadmap to achieve their learning goals. They require the learner to self-identify what they need to learn and why, how they are going to do it, how they will know when they are finished, define the timeframe for goal achievement and assess the impact of their learning [ 20 ]. In so doing, LPs give more autonomy to the learner and facilitate objective and targeted feedback from supervisors. This approach has been described as “most congruent with the assumptions we make about adults as learners” [ 21 ].

LP use has been explored across various clinical settings and at all levels of medical education; however, most of the experience lies in postgraduate medical education [ 22 ]. Medical students are a unique learner population with learning needs that appear to be very well suited for using LPs for two main reasons. First, their education is often divided between classroom and clinical settings. During clinical training, students need to be more independent in setting learning goals to meet desired competencies as their education is no longer outlined for them in a detailed fashion by the medical school curriculum [ 23 ]. SRL in the workplace is also different than in the classroom due to additional complexities of clinical care that can impact students’ ability to self-regulate their learning [ 24 ]. Second, although most medical trainees have difficulty with goal setting, medical students in particular need more guidance compared to residents due to their relative lack of experience upon which they can build within the SRL framework [ 25 ]. LPs can therefore provide much-needed structure to their learning but should be guided by an experienced tutor to be effective [ 15 , 24 ].

LPs fit well within the learner-centred educational framework of CBME by helping trainees identify their learning needs and facilitating longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. In so doing, they can address current issues with learner handover and identification as well as remediation of struggling learners. Moreover, they have the potential to help trainees develop lifelong skills with respect to continuing professional development after graduation which is required by many medical licensing bodies.

An initial search of the JBI Database, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar conducted in July–August 2022 revealed a paucity of research on LP use in undergraduate medical education (UGME). A related systematic review by van Houten–Schat et al. [ 24 ] on SRL in the clinical setting identified three interventions used by medical students and residents in SRL—coaching, LPs and supportive tools. However, only a couple of the included studies looked specifically at medical students’ use of LPs, so this remains an area in need of more exploration. A scoping review would provide an excellent starting point to map the body of literature on this topic.

The objective of this scoping review will therefore be to explore LP use in UGME. In doing so, it will address a gap in knowledge and help determine additional areas for research.

This study will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 26 ] five-step framework for scoping review methodology. It will not include the optional sixth step which entails stakeholder consultation as relevant stakeholders will be intentionally included in the research team (a member of UGME leadership, a medical student and a first-year resident).

Step 1—Identifying the research question

The overarching purpose of this study is to “explore the use of LPs in UGME”. More specifically we seek to achieve the following:

Summarise the literature regarding the use of LPs in UGME (including context, students targeted, frameworks used)

Explore the role of the student in all stages of the LP development and implementation

Determine existing research gaps

Step 2—Identifying relevant studies

An experienced health sciences librarian (VC) will conduct all searches and develop the initial search strategy. The preliminary search strategy is shown in Appendix A (see Additional file 2). Articles will be included if they meet the following criteria [ 27 ]:

Participants

Medical students enrolled at a medical school at the undergraduate level.

Any use of LPs by medical students. LPs are defined as a document, usually presented in a table format, that outlines the learner’s roadmap to achieve their learning goals [ 20 ].

Any stage of UGME in any geographic setting.

Types of evidence sources

We will search existing published and unpublished (grey) literature. This may include research studies, reviews, or expert opinion pieces.

Search strategy

With the assistance of an experienced librarian (VC), a pilot search will be conducted to inform the final search strategy. A search will be conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Education Source, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science. The search terms will be developed in consultation with the research team and librarian. The search strategy will proceed according to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis three-step search strategy for reviews [ 27 ]. First, we will conduct a limited search in two appropriate online databases and analyse text words from the title, abstracts and index terms of relevant papers. Next, we will conduct a second search using all identified key words in all databases. Third, we will review reference lists of all included studies to identify further relevant studies to include in the review. We will also contact the authors of relevant papers for further information if required. This will be an iterative process as the research team becomes more familiar with the literature and will be guided by the librarian. Any modifications to the search strategy as it evolves will be described in the scoping review report. As a measure of rigour, the search strategy will be peer-reviewed by another librarian using the PRESS checklist [ 28 ]. No language or date limits will be applied.

Step 3—Study selection

The screening process will consist of a two-step approach: screening titles/abstracts and, if they meet inclusion criteria, this will be followed by a full-text review. All screening will be done by two members of the research team and any disagreements will be resolved by an independent third member of the team. Based on preliminary inclusion criteria, the whole research team will first pilot the screening process by reviewing a random sample of 25 titles/abstracts. The search strategy, eligibility criteria and study objectives will be refined in an iterative process. We anticipate several meetings as the topic is not well described in the literature. A flowchart of the review process will be generated. Any modifications to the study selection process will be described in the scoping review report. The papers will be excluded if a full text is not available. The search results will be managed using Covidence software.

Step 4—Charting the data

A preliminary data extraction tool is shown in Appendix B (see Additional file 3 ). Data will be extracted into Excel and will include demographic information and specific details about the population, concept, context, study methods and outcomes as they relate to the scoping review objectives. The whole research team will pilot the data extraction tool on ten articles selected for full-text review. Through an iterative process, the final data extraction form will be refined. Subsequently, two members of the team will independently extract data from all articles included for full-text review using this tool. Charting disagreements will be resolved by the principal and senior investigators. Google Translate will be used for any included articles that are not in the English language.

Step 5—Collating, summarising and reporting the results

Quantitative and qualitative analyses will be used to summarise the results. Quantitative analysis will capture descriptive statistics with details about the population, concept, context, study methods and outcomes being examined in this scoping review. Qualitative content analysis will enable interpretation of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes and patterns [ 29 ]. Several team meetings will be held to review potential themes to ensure an accurate representation of the data. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to guide the reporting of review findings [ 30 ]. Data will be presented in tables and/or diagrams as applicable. A descriptive summary will explain the presented results and how they relate to the scoping review objectives.

By summarising the literature on LP use in UGME, this study will contribute to a better understanding of how to support SRL amongst medical students. The results from this project will also inform future scholarly work in CBME at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback as well as supporting learners at all levels of competence. In doing so, this study may have practical applications by informing learning plan incorporation into CBME-based curricula.

We do not anticipate any practical or operational issues at this time. We assembled a team with the necessary expertise and tools to complete this project.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study will be included in the published scoping review article.

Abbreviations

• Competency-based medical education

Entrustable professional activity

• Learning plan
• Self-regulated learning
• Undergraduate medical education

Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Shorey S, Lau TC, Lau ST, Ang E. Entrustable professional activities in health care education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2019;53(8):766–77.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81–112.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: the perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S84–7.

Warm EJ, Englander R, Pereira A, Barach P. Improving learner handovers in medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92(7):927–31.

Spooner M, Duane C, Uygur J, et al. Self-regulatory learning theory as a lens on how undergraduate and postgraduate learners respond to feedback: a BEME scoping review : BEME Guide No. 66. Med Teach. 2022;44(1):3–18.

Frellsen SL, Baker EA, Papp KK, Durning SJ. Medical school policies regarding struggling medical students during the internal medicine clerkships: results of a National Survey. Acad Med. 2008;83(9):876–81.

Humphrey-Murto S, LeBlanc A, Touchie C, et al. The influence of prior performance information on ratings of current performance and implications for learner handover: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1050–7.

Morgan HK, Mejicano GC, Skochelak S, et al. A responsible educational handover: improving communication to improve learning. Acad Med. 2020;95(2):194–9.

Dory V, Danoff D, Plotnick LH, et al. Does educational handover influence subsequent assessment? Acad Med. 2021;96(1):118–25.

Humphrey-Murto S, Lingard L, Varpio L, et al. Learner handover: who is it really for? Acad Med. 2021;96(4):592–8.

Shaw T, Wood TJ, Touchie T, Pugh D, Humphrey-Murto S. How biased are you? The effect of prior performance information on attending physician ratings and implications for learner handover. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021;26(1):199–214.

Artino AR, Brydges R, Gruppen LD. Chapter 14: Self-regulated learning in health professional education: theoretical perspectives and research methods. In: Cleland J, Duning SJ, editors. Researching Medical Education. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2015. p. 155–66.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cleland J, Arnold R, Chesser A. Failing finals is often a surprise for the student but not the teacher: identifying difficulties and supporting students with academic difficulties. Med Teach. 2005;27(6):504–8.

Reed S, Lockspeiser TM, Burke A, et al. Practical suggestions for the creation and use of meaningful learning goals in graduate medical education. Acad Pediatr. 2016;16(1):20–4.

Wolff M, Stojan J, Cranford J, et al. The impact of informed self-assessment on the development of medical students’ learning goals. Med Teach. 2018;40(3):296–301.

Sawatsky AP, Halvorsen AJ, Daniels PR, et al. Characteristics and quality of rotation-specific resident learning goals: a prospective study. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1714198.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pintrich PR. Chapter 14: The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of self-regulation. 1st ed. Academic Press; 2000. p. 451–502.

Kassab SE, El-Sayed W, Hamdy H. Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2022;56(7):703–15.

Challis M. AMEE medical education guide No. 19: Personal learning plans. Med Teach. 2000;22(3):225–36.

Knowles MS. Using learning contracts. 1 st ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1986.

Parsell G, Bligh J. Contract learning, clinical learning and clinicians. Postgrad Med J. 1996;72(847):284–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Teunissen PW, Scheele F, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. How residents learn: qualitative evidence for the pivotal role of clinical activities. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):763–70.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Houten-Schat MA, Berkhout JJ, van Dijk N, Endedijk MD, Jaarsma ADC, Diemers AD. Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2018;52(10):1008–15.

Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalol H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. . Accessed 30 Aug 2022.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Venables M, Larocque A, Sikora L, Archibald D, Grudniewicz A. Understanding indigenous health education and exploring indigenous anti-racism approaches in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review protocol. OSF; 2022. https://osf.io/umwgr/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study will be supported through grants from the Department of Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa. The funding bodies had no role in the study design and will not have any role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, PO Box 209, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

Anna Romanova & Claire Touchie

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Sydney Ruller

The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Victoria Cole

The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus, Ottawa, Canada

Susan Humphrey-Murto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AR designed and drafted the protocol. CT and SH contributed to the refinement of the research question, study methods and editing of the manuscript. VC designed the initial search strategy. All authors reviewed the manuscript for final approval. The review guarantors are CT and SH. The corresponding author is AR.

Authors’ information

AR is a clinician teacher and Assistant Professor with the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Ottawa. She is also the Associate Director for the internal medicine clerkship rotation at the General campus of the Ottawa Hospital.

CT is a Professor of Medicine with the Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Ottawa. She is also a member of the UGME Competence Committee at the University of Ottawa and an advisor for the development of a new school of medicine at Toronto Metropolitan University.

SH is an Associate Professor with the Department of Medicine at the University of Ottawa and holds a Tier 2 Research Chair in Medical Education. She is also the Interim Director for the Research Support Unit within the Department of Innovation in Medical Education at the University of Ottawa.

CT and SH have extensive experience with medical education research and have numerous publications in this field.

SR is a Research Assistant with the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

VC is a Health Sciences Research Librarian at the University of Ottawa.

SR and VC have extensive experience in systematic and scoping reviews.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Romanova .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. prisma-p 2015 checklist., 13643_2024_2553_moesm2_esm.docx.

Additional file 2: Appendix A. Preliminary search strategy [ 31 ].

Additional file 3: Appendix B. Preliminary data extraction tool.

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Romanova, A., Touchie, C., Ruller, S. et al. Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education. Syst Rev 13 , 131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2022

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

The green IT revolution: A blueprint for CIOs to combat climate change

Companies and governments looking to combat climate change are turning to tech for help. AI, new technologies, and some promising tech-driven business models have raised hopes for dramatic progress.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Gerrit Becker, Luca Bennici, Anamika Bhargava, Andrea Del Miglio , Jeffrey Lewis , and Pankaj Sachdeva, representing views from McKinsey Technology.

While many organizations’ climate goals are lofty, enterprise technology leaders—CIOs, chief digital innovation officers (CDIOs), and chief technology officers (CTOs), among others—have not always succeeded at turning climate ambitions into reality. One of the biggest reasons is that hard facts and clear paths of action are scarce. Misconceptions and misinformation have clouded the picture of what CIOs and tech leaders should do.

We have done extensive analysis of where technology can have the biggest impact on reducing emissions. To start, we divided technology’s role into two primary types of activities:

• offense—the use of technology and analytics to cut emissions by reducing (improving operational efficiency), replacing (shifting emission-generating activities to cleaner alternatives), and reusing (recycling material)
• defense—the actions IT can take to reduce emissions from the enterprise’s technology estate

Scope of the McKinsey analysis

McKinsey’s emissions analysis for this report focuses on enterprise technology emissions, which are the business IT emissions from the hardware, software, IT services, enterprise communications equipment, mobile devices, fixed and mobile network services, and internal technology teams that a company uses for its own operations and that a CIO has control over. These include the emissions related to the full life cycles of the products and services that an enterprise IT function uses, including their development, delivery, usage, and end of life (exhibit). Our internal services emissions' analysis assumes around 40 percent of IT workers are working from home.

The analysis does not include the emissions from the technology products and services that a company is selling (such as data center capacity sold by hyperscalers), operational technology devices (such as sensors and point-of-sale systems), and cryptocurrency mining.

The defense activities are where the CIO, as the head of IT, can act independently and quickly. This article focuses on defense, specifically the IT elements over which a CIO has direct control. We examined emissions from use of electricity for owned enterprise IT operations, such as the running of on-premises data centers and devices (classified as scope 2 by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol 1 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions: Supplement to the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting & Reporting Standard , World Resources Institute & World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2013. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from the activities of an organization or under their control, including fuel combustion on site such as gas boilers, fleet vehicles, and air-conditioning leaks; scope 2 emissions are from electricity purchased and used by the organization; and scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions not included in scope 2 that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions. ), and indirect emissions from technology devices that the CIO buys and disposes of (scope 3). 2 These calculations do not include emissions from technology-driven services sold, such as cloud capacity. (See sidebar, “Scope of the McKinsey analysis.”)

What the facts say

Our analysis has uncovered several facts that contravene some commonly held views about enterprise technology emissions. These facts involve the significant amount of tech-related emissions, the share of emissions from end-user devices, the variety of mitigation options available, and the favorable impact of shifting to cloud computing.

Enterprise technology generates significant emissions

Enterprise technology is responsible for emitting about 350 to 400 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases (CO 2 e), accounting for about 1 percent of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At first blush, this might not seem like a lot, but it equals about half of the emissions from aviation or shipping and is the equivalent of the total carbon emitted by the United Kingdom.

The industry sector that contributes the largest share of technology-related scope 2 and scope 3 GHG emissions is communications, media, and services (Exhibit 1). Enterprise technology’s contribution to total emissions is especially high for insurance (45 percent of total scope 2 emissions) and for banking and investment services (36 percent).

This amount of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases is a significant prize for companies under increasing pressure to cut emissions. Progress on climate change requires action on many fronts, and enterprise technology offers an important option that CIOs and companies can act on quickly.

You’re invited

To a McKinsey Technology webinar on the critical role of technology in building a sustainable enterprise on October 25, 9:30–10:30am ET.

The biggest carbon culprit is end-user devices, not on-premises data centers

End-user devices—laptops, tablets, smartphones, and printers—generate 1.5 to 2.0 times more carbon globally than data centers (Exhibit 2). 3 On-premises and co-located data centers used by enterprises, not including data center capacity sold by hyperscalers. One reason is that companies have significantly more end-user devices than servers in on-premises data centers. In addition, the devices typically are replaced much more often: smartphones have an average refresh cycle of two years, laptops four years, and printers five years. On average, servers are replaced every five years, though 19 percent of organizations wait longer. 4 Rhona Ascierto and Andy Lawrence, Uptime Institute global data center survey 2020 , Uptime Institute, July 2020.

More worrisome, emissions from end-user devices are on track to increase at a CAGR of 12.8 percent per year. 5 End-user computing market: Growth, trends, COVID-19 impact, and forecasts (2022–2027) , Mordor Intelligence, January 2022. Efforts to address this could target the major causes of emissions from these devices. About three-fourths of the emissions comes from manufacturing, upstream transportation, and disposal. A significant source of these emissions is the semiconductors that power the devices.

Plenty of low-cost/high-impact options exist, starting with improved sourcing

We have found that when it comes to going green, many CIOs think in terms of investments needed to replace items or upgrade facilities. Our analysis, however, finds that CIOs can capture significant carbon benefits without making a significant investment—and in some cases can even save money (Exhibit 3).

Overall, for example, 50 to 60 percent of emissions related to end-user devices can be addressed through sourcing changes, primarily by procuring fewer devices per person and extending the life cycle of each device through recycling. These options will not require any investment and will lower costs, though companies may want to evaluate the impact on employee experience.

In addition, companies can more aggressively recycle their devices; 89 percent of organizations recycle less than 10 percent of their hardware overall. 6 Sustainable IT: Why it’s time for a green revolution for your organization’s IT , Capgemini Research Institute, 2021. CIOs can put pressure on suppliers to use greener devices, especially as companies in the semiconductor sector are already increasing their commitments to emission reduction. Further low-cost, high-impact actions include optimizing business travel and data center computing needs, as well as increasing the use of cloud to manage workloads.

Moving to cloud has more impact than optimizing data centers

Optimizing an on-premises data center’s power usage effectiveness (PUE) 7 PUE describes how efficiently a computer data center uses energy, expressed as the ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy. is expensive and results in limited carbon abatement. If a company were to double what it spends on infrastructure and cloud to reduce PUE, it would cut carbon emissions by only 15 to 20 percent. Structural improvements in data centers and optimized layout can help, but the impact is limited, and many companies have already implemented them. More aggressive measures, such as moving data centers to cooler locations or investing in new cooling tech, are prohibitively expensive.

A more effective approach is to migrate workloads to the cloud. Hyperscalers (also known as cloud service providers) and co-locators are investing significantly to become greener through measures such as buying green energy themselves and investing in ultra-efficient data centers with a PUE equal to or less than 1.10, compared with the average PUE of 1.57 for an on-premises data center. 8 “Uptime Institute 11th annual Global Data Center Survey shows sustainability, outage, and efficiency challenges amid capacity growth,” Uptime Institute, September 14, 2021. (We estimate that companies could achieve just a 1.3 PUE score for their data center if they invested nearly 250 percent more, on average, over what they currently spend for their data centers and cloud presence.)

With thoughtful migration to and optimized usage of the cloud, companies could reduce the carbon emissions from their data centers by more than 55 percent—about 40 megatons of CO 2 e worldwide, the equivalent of the total carbon emissions from Switzerland.

Three steps to take now

With companies and governments under intensifying pressure to cut carbon emissions and with technology playing a key role in delivering on those goals, CIOs will find themselves on the front lines. The challenge will be to reduce IT’s carbon footprint while delivering high-quality, low-cost technology services to customers and employees.

On average, completion of the defensive steps might take three to four years. However, CIOs who act decisively and precisely can achieve 15 to 20 percent of carbon reduction potential in the first year with minimal investment.

CIOs can choose from among a wide array responses, particularly in conjunction with the CEO and the board. However, three measures they can take right now will prepare the organization for longer-term efforts. These measures involve sourcing strategies, key metrics, and a performance management system.

The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring

Move now on sourcing strategies.

Far and away the fastest and most effective defensive measure for reducing IT carbon emissions is to revise policies for technology sourcing. Optimizing the number of devices in line with standards followed by companies in the top quartile 9 Top quartile in terms of the ratio of devices to people is derived from the number of devices per person. Our analysis uses McKinsey Digital’s Ignite solutions and 2020 data. would reduce about 30 percent of end-user-device emissions, the amount of carbon emitted by Hong Kong. For example, top-quartile companies have one printer for every 16 people in the workplace; the overall average is one printer per eight people.

This sourcing shift does not necessarily lead to a degradation in user experience, because the rollout of 5G and increasingly advanced processing and compute power allow the main processing function to happen at the server. Therefore, devices can be less powerful and consume much less energy. Essentially, this is a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model where high-end and user-friendly experiences happen on the server, not the device. The effectiveness of this approach will depend on having stable networks, less resource-intensive coding at the device level, edge computing capabilities, and shifts of offerings to more efficient platforms (for example, cloud).

As part of this effort, the CIO and the business’s head of procurement will need to collaborate on reviewing and adjusting device refresh timelines and device-to-person ratios, as well as adjusting the basis for purchasing decisions. Procurement generally relies on cost/benefit calculations, and rightly so. That approach will need to expand to account for carbon dioxide emissions. The spirit of collaboration should extend to suppliers as well, with the parties working together to formulate plans that provide the greatest benefits for all.

A more thoughtful sourcing strategy extends beyond end-user devices. CIOs, for example, should look for green sources of the electricity IT uses. When these sources are unavailable, CIOs can direct procurement to power purchase agreements to offset carbon use. CIOs can also set green standards for their vendors and suppliers, requiring GHG emissions disclosures and incorporating them into their criteria for purchase decisions.

Establish a green ROI metric for technology costs

Any real progress on green technology can happen only when companies measure their “green returns.” But today, most green metrics omit cost and savings, which ultimately makes them impractical. A better metric focuses on cost per ton of carbon saved (accounting for costs saved as well). Sophisticated models calculate emissions throughout the full life cycle, including production, transportation, and disposal.

CIOs can further assess suppliers, manufacturers, and service providers based on how advanced they are in recycling and refurbishing electronics; designing circular components; extending product life cycles with better design, higher-quality manufacturing, and more robust materials; offering repair services; and reselling to consumers.

Decisions about IT spending need to consider a range of factors, including technical debt abatement and business strategy. Along with these factors, companies should institutionalize a green ROI metric that is transparent to everybody in the business as an element in IT decision making, including in requests for proposals (RFPs). Doing so will enable companies to better understand the true impact their technology is having on carbon emissions.

Put in place green measurement systems

Establishing a green ROI metric is only a start. CIOs need to establish a baseline of performance, measure progress against the baseline, and track impact in near real time, much as companies track real-time computer and network usage for applications in the cloud. This kind of measuring system ensures that CIOs know what’s working and what isn’t, so they can adjust quickly.

In practice, implementing green measurement can be challenging. Some companies have spent a year measuring their carbon footprint, ending up with an outdated analysis. This tends to happen when companies are determined to measure every bit of carbon emitted, a praiseworthy but time-consuming effort. CIOs can make substantial progress by instead prioritizing measurement where the impact is highest, such as tracking the number of end-user devices purchased and in use, the current duration of use for each device, and the ratio of devices per user. Another way CIOs can make quick progress is to embed emissions- and power-monitoring capabilities into large technology assets and work with external providers, such as electricity companies, to track usage in real time.

Effectively combating climate change won’t happen through one or two big wins; those don’t exist yet. To have real impact, companies and governments will need to act in many areas. Technology has a huge role to play in many of these areas, but CIOs and tech leaders need to act quickly and decisively.

This article is the first in a series about how CIOs can reduce emissions. The next article will explore how CIOs can drive the business’s sustainability agenda by playing offense and implementing reduce, replace, and reuse levers to decarbonize.

Gerrit Becker is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Frankfurt office, Luca Bennici is an associate partner in the Dubai office, Anamika Bhargava is a consultant in the Toronto office, Andrea Del Miglio is a senior partner in the Milan office, Jeffrey Lewis is a senior partner in the New Jersey office, and Pankaj Sachdeva is a partner in the Philadelphia office.

The authors wish to thank Bernardo Betley, Arjita Bhan, Raghuvar Choppakatla, Sebastian Hoffmann, Abdelrahman Mahfouz, Tom Pütz, Jürgen Sailer, Tim Vroman, Alice Yu, and Gisella Zapata for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

It’s not easy buying green: How to win at sustainable sourcing

Sustainability in semiconductor operations: Toward net-zero production

Delivering the climate technologies needed for net zero