action research discussion of results

Action Research: Steps, Benefits, and Tips

Introduction

History of action research, what is the definition of action research, types of action research, conducting action research.

Action research is an approach to qualitative inquiry in social science research that involves the search for practical solutions to everyday issues. Rooted in real-world problems, it seeks not just to understand but also to act, bringing about positive change in specific contexts. Often distinguished by its collaborative nature, the action research process goes beyond traditional research paradigms by emphasizing the involvement of those being studied in resolving social conflicts and effecting positive change.

The value of action research lies not just in its outcomes, but also in the process itself, where stakeholders become active participants rather than mere subjects. In this article, we'll examine action research in depth, shedding light on its history, principles, and types of action research.

Tracing its roots back to the mid-20th century, Kurt Lewin developed classical action research as a response to traditional research methods in the social sciences that often sidelined the very communities they studied. Proponents of action research championed the idea that research should not just be an observational exercise but an actionable one that involves devising practical solutions. Advocates believed in the idea of research leading to immediate social action, emphasizing the importance of involving the community in the process.

Applications for action research

Over the years, action research has evolved and diversified. From its early applications in social psychology and organizational development, it has branched out into various fields such as education, healthcare, and community development, informing questions around improving schools, minority problems, and more. This growth wasn't just in application, but also in its methodologies.

How is action research different?

Like all research methodologies, effective action research generates knowledge. However, action research stands apart in its commitment to instigate tangible change. Traditional research often places emphasis on passive observation , employing data collection methods primarily to contribute to broader theoretical frameworks . In contrast, action research is inherently proactive, intertwining the acts of observing and acting.

The primary goal isn't just to understand a problem but to solve or alleviate it. Action researchers partner closely with communities, ensuring that the research process directly benefits those involved. This collaboration often leads to immediate interventions, tweaks, or solutions applied in real-time, marking a departure from other forms of research that might wait until the end of a study to make recommendations.

This proactive, change-driven nature makes action research particularly impactful in settings where immediate change is not just beneficial but essential.

Action research is best understood as a systematic approach to cooperative inquiry. Unlike traditional research methodologies that might primarily focus on generating knowledge, action research emphasizes producing actionable solutions for pressing real-world challenges.

This form of research undertakes a cyclic and reflective journey, typically cycling through stages of planning , acting, observing, and reflecting. A defining characteristic of action research is the collaborative spirit it embodies, often dissolving the rigid distinction between the researcher and the researched, leading to mutual learning and shared outcomes.

Advantages of action research

One of the foremost benefits of action research is the immediacy of its application. Since the research is embedded within real-world issues, any findings or solutions derived can often be integrated straightaway, catalyzing prompt improvements within the concerned community or organization. This immediacy is coupled with the empowering nature of the methodology. Participants aren't mere subjects; they actively shape the research process, giving them a tangible sense of ownership over both the research journey and its eventual outcomes.

Moreover, the inherent adaptability of action research allows researchers to tweak their approaches responsively based on live feedback. This ensures the research remains rooted in the evolving context, capturing the nuances of the situation and making any necessary adjustments. Lastly, this form of research tends to offer a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, harmonizing socially constructed theoretical knowledge with hands-on insights, leading to a richer, more textured understanding.

Disadvantages of action research

Like any methodology, action research isn't devoid of challenges. Its iterative nature, while beneficial, can extend timelines. Researchers might find themselves engaged in multiple cycles of observation, reflection, and action before arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. The intimate involvement of the researcher with the research participants , although crucial for collaboration, opens doors to potential conflicts. Through collaborative problem solving, disagreements can lead to richer and more nuanced solutions, but it can take considerable time and effort.

Another limitation stems from its focus on a specific context: results derived from a particular action research project might not always resonate or be applicable in a different context or with a different group. Lastly, the depth of collaboration this methodology demands means all stakeholders need to be deeply invested, and such a level of commitment might not always be feasible.

Examples of action research

To illustrate, let's consider a few scenarios. Imagine a classroom where a teacher observes dwindling student participation. Instead of sticking to conventional methods, the teacher experiments with introducing group-based activities. As the outcomes unfold, the teacher continually refines the approach based on student feedback, eventually leading to a teaching strategy that rejuvenates student engagement.

In a healthcare context, hospital staff who recognize growing patient anxiety related to certain procedures might innovate by introducing a new patient-informing protocol. As they study the effects of this change, they could, through iterations, sculpt a procedure that diminishes patient anxiety.

Similarly, in the realm of community development, a community grappling with the absence of child-friendly public spaces might collaborate with local authorities to conceptualize a park. As they monitor its utilization and societal impact, continual feedback could refine the park's infrastructure and design.

Contemporary action research, while grounded in the core principles of collaboration, reflection, and change, has seen various adaptations tailored to the specific needs of different contexts and fields. These adaptations have led to the emergence of distinct types of action research, each with its unique emphasis and approach.

Collaborative action research

Collaborative action research emphasizes the joint efforts of professionals, often from the same field, working together to address common concerns or challenges. In this approach, there's a strong emphasis on shared responsibility, mutual respect, and co-learning. For example, a group of classroom teachers might collaboratively investigate methods to improve student literacy, pooling their expertise and resources to devise, implement, and refine strategies for improving teaching.

Participatory action research

Participatory action research (PAR) goes a step further in dissolving the barriers between the researcher and the researched. It actively involves community members or stakeholders not just as participants, but as equal partners in the entire research process. PAR is deeply democratic and seeks to empower participants, fostering a sense of agency and ownership. For instance, a participatory research project might involve local residents in studying and addressing community health concerns, ensuring that the research process and outcomes are both informed by and beneficial to the community itself.

Educational action research

Educational action research is tailored specifically to practical educational contexts. Here, educators take on the dual role of teacher and researcher, seeking to improve teaching practices, curricula, classroom dynamics, or educational evaluation. This type of research is cyclical, with educators implementing changes, observing outcomes, and reflecting on results to continually enhance the educational experience. An example might be a teacher studying the impact of technology integration in her classroom, adjusting strategies based on student feedback and learning outcomes.

Community-based action research

Another noteworthy type is community-based action research, which focuses primarily on community development and well-being. Rooted in the principles of social justice, this approach emphasizes the collective power of community members to identify, study, and address their challenges. It's particularly powerful in grassroots movements and local development projects where community insights and collaboration drive meaningful, sustainable change.

Key insights and critical reflection through research with ATLAS.ti

Organize all your data analysis and insights with our powerful interface. Download a free trial today.

Engaging in action research is both an enlightening and transformative journey, rooted in practicality yet deeply connected to theory. For those embarking on this path, understanding the essentials of an action research study and the significance of a research cycle is paramount.

Understanding the action research cycle

At the heart of action research is its cycle, a structured yet adaptable framework guiding the research. This cycle embodies the iterative nature of action research, emphasizing that learning and change evolve through repetition and reflection.

The typical stages include:

• Identifying a problem : This is the starting point where the action researcher pinpoints a pressing issue or challenge that demands attention.
• Planning : Here, the researcher devises an action research strategy aimed at addressing the identified problem. In action research, network resources, participant consultation, and the literature review are core components in planning.
• Action : The planned strategies are then implemented in this stage. This 'action' phase is where theoretical knowledge meets practical application.
• Observation : Post-implementation, the researcher observes the outcomes and effects of the action. This stage ensures that the research remains grounded in the real-world context.
• Critical reflection : This part of the cycle involves analyzing the observed results to draw conclusions about their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
• Revision : Based on the insights from reflection, the initial plan is revised, marking the beginning of another cycle.

Rigorous research and iteration

It's essential to understand that while action research is deeply practical, it doesn't sacrifice rigor . The cyclical process ensures that the research remains thorough and robust. Each iteration of the cycle in an action research project refines the approach, drawing it closer to an effective solution.

The role of the action researcher

The action researcher stands at the nexus of theory and practice. Not just an observer, the researcher actively engages with the study's participants, collaboratively navigating through the research cycle by conducting interviews, participant observations, and member checking . This close involvement ensures that the study remains relevant, timely, and responsive.

Drawing conclusions and informing theory

As the research progresses through multiple iterations of data collection and data analysis , drawing conclusions becomes an integral aspect. These conclusions, while immediately beneficial in addressing the practical issue at hand, also serve a broader purpose. They inform theory, enriching the academic discourse and providing valuable insights for future research.

Identifying actionable insights

Keep in mind that action research should facilitate implications for professional practice as well as space for systematic inquiry. As you draw conclusions about the knowledge generated from action research, consider how this knowledge can create new forms of solutions to the pressing concern you set out to address.

Collecting data and analyzing data starts with ATLAS.ti

Download a free trial of our intuitive software to make the most of your research.

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

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

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

The best way to get things accomplished is to do it yourself. This statement is utilized in corporations, community projects, and national governments. These organizations are relying on action research to cope with their continuously changing and unstable environments as they function in a more interdependent world.

In practical educational contexts, this involves using systematic inquiry and reflective practice to address real-world challenges, improve teaching and learning, enhance student engagement, and drive positive changes within the educational system.

This post outlines the definition of action research, its stages, and some examples.

Content Index

What is action research?

Stages of action research, the steps to conducting action research, examples of action research, advantages and disadvantages of action research.

Action research is a strategy that tries to find realistic solutions to organizations’ difficulties and issues. It is similar to applied research.

Action research refers basically learning by doing. First, a problem is identified, then some actions are taken to address it, then how well the efforts worked are measured, and if the results are not satisfactory, the steps are applied again.

It can be put into three different groups:

• Positivist: This type of research is also called “classical action research.” It considers research a social experiment. This research is used to test theories in the actual world.
• Interpretive: This kind of research is called “contemporary action research.” It thinks that business reality is socially made, and when doing this research, it focuses on the details of local and organizational factors.
• Critical: This action research cycle takes a critical reflection approach to corporate systems and tries to enhance them.

All research is about learning new things. Collaborative action research contributes knowledge based on investigations in particular and frequently useful circumstances. It starts with identifying a problem. After that, the research process is followed by the below stages:

Stage 1: Plan

For an action research project to go well, the researcher needs to plan it well. After coming up with an educational research topic or question after a research study, the first step is to develop an action plan to guide the research process. The research design aims to address the study’s question. The research strategy outlines what to undertake, when, and how.

Stage 2: Act

The next step is implementing the plan and gathering data. At this point, the researcher must select how to collect and organize research data . The researcher also needs to examine all tools and equipment before collecting data to ensure they are relevant, valid, and comprehensive.

Stage 3: Observe

Data observation is vital to any investigation. The action researcher needs to review the project’s goals and expectations before data observation. This is the final step before drawing conclusions and taking action.

Different kinds of graphs, charts, and networks can be used to represent the data. It assists in making judgments or progressing to the next stage of observing.

Stage 4: Reflect

This step involves applying a prospective solution and observing the results. It’s essential to see if the possible solution found through research can really solve the problem being studied.

The researcher must explore alternative ideas when the action research project’s solutions fail to solve the problem.

Action research is a systematic approach researchers, educators, and practitioners use to identify and address problems or challenges within a specific context. It involves a cyclical process of planning, implementing, reflecting, and adjusting actions based on the data collected. Here are the general steps involved in conducting an action research process:

Identify the action research question or problem

Clearly define the issue or problem you want to address through your research. It should be specific, actionable, and relevant to your working context.

Review existing knowledge

Conduct a literature review to understand what research has already been done on the topic. This will help you gain insights, identify gaps, and inform your research design.

Plan the research

Develop a research plan outlining your study’s objectives, methods, data collection tools, and timeline. Determine the scope of your research and the participants or stakeholders involved.

Collect data

Implement your research plan by collecting relevant data. This can involve various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, or focus groups. Ensure that your data collection methods align with your research objectives and allow you to gather the necessary information.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data, analyze it using appropriate qualitative or quantitative techniques. Look for patterns, themes, or trends in the data that can help you understand the problem better.

Reflect on the findings

Reflect on the analyzed data and interpret the results in the context of your research question. Consider the implications and possible solutions that emerge from the data analysis. This reflection phase is crucial for generating insights and understanding the underlying factors contributing to the problem.

Develop an action plan

Based on your analysis and reflection, develop an action plan that outlines the steps you will take to address the identified problem. The plan should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART goals). Consider involving relevant stakeholders in planning to ensure their buy-in and support.

Implement the action plan

Put your action plan into practice by implementing the identified strategies or interventions. This may involve making changes to existing practices, introducing new approaches, or testing alternative solutions. Document the implementation process and any modifications made along the way.

Evaluate and monitor progress

Continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of your actions. Collect additional data, assess the effectiveness of the interventions, and measure progress towards your goals. This evaluation will help you determine if your actions have the desired effects and inform any necessary adjustments.

Reflect and iterate

Reflect on the outcomes of your actions and the evaluation results. Consider what worked well, what did not, and why. Use this information to refine your approach, make necessary adjustments, and plan for the next cycle of action research if needed.

Remember that participatory action research is an iterative process, and multiple cycles may be required to achieve significant improvements or solutions to the identified problem. Each cycle builds on the insights gained from the previous one, fostering continuous learning and improvement.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Here are two real-life examples of action research.

Action research initiatives are frequently situation-specific. Still, other researchers can adapt the techniques. The example is from a researcher’s (Franklin, 1994) report about a project encouraging nature tourism in the Caribbean.

In 1991, this was launched to study how nature tourism may be implemented on the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean: St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

For environmental protection, a government-led action study determined that the consultation process needs to involve numerous stakeholders, including commercial enterprises.

First, two researchers undertook the study and held search conferences on each island. The search conferences resulted in suggestions and action plans for local community nature tourism sub-projects.

Several islands formed advisory groups and launched national awareness and community projects. Regional project meetings were held to discuss experiences, self-evaluations, and strategies. Creating a documentary about a local initiative helped build community. And the study was a success, leading to a number of changes in the area.

Lau and Hayward (1997) employed action research to analyze Internet-based collaborative work groups.

Over two years, the researchers facilitated three action research problem -solving cycles with 15 teachers, project personnel, and 25 health practitioners from diverse areas. The goal was to see how Internet-based communications might affect their virtual workgroup.

First, expectations were defined, technology was provided, and a bespoke workgroup system was developed. Participants suggested shorter, more dispersed training sessions with project-specific instructions.

The second phase saw the system’s complete deployment. The final cycle witnessed system stability and virtual group formation. The key lesson was that the learning curve was poorly misjudged, with frustrations only marginally met by phone-based technical help. According to the researchers, the absence of high-quality online material about community healthcare was harmful.

Role clarity, connection building, knowledge sharing, resource assistance, and experiential learning are vital for virtual group growth. More study is required on how group support systems might assist groups in engaging with their external environment and boost group members’ learning. 

Action research has both good and bad points.

• It is very flexible, so researchers can change their analyses to fit their needs and make individual changes.
• It offers a quick and easy way to solve problems that have been going on for a long time instead of complicated, long-term solutions based on complex facts.
• If It is done right, it can be very powerful because it can lead to social change and give people the tools to make that change in ways that are important to their communities.

Disadvantages

• These studies have a hard time being generalized and are hard to repeat because they are so flexible. Because the researcher has the power to draw conclusions, they are often not thought to be theoretically sound.
• Setting up an action study in an ethical way can be hard. People may feel like they have to take part or take part in a certain way.
• It is prone to research errors like selection bias , social desirability bias, and other cognitive biases.

LEARN ABOUT: Self-Selection Bias

This post discusses how action research generates knowledge, its steps, and real-life examples. It is very applicable to the field of research and has a high level of relevance. We can only state that the purpose of this research is to comprehend an issue and find a solution to it.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, like our survey software, and a library of insights for any long-term study. Go to the Insight Hub if you want to see a demo or learn more about it.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ’s)

Action research is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves identifying a problem or challenge in a practical context, implementing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, and using the findings to inform decision-making and drive positive change.

Action research can be conducted by various individuals or groups, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and educational practitioners. It is often carried out by those directly involved in the educational setting where the research takes place.

The steps of action research typically include identifying a problem, reviewing relevant literature, designing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, reflecting on findings, and implementing improvements based on the results.

MORE LIKE THIS

QuestionPro: Leading the Charge in Customer Journey Management and Voice of the Customer Platforms

Sep 17, 2024

Was The Experience Memorable? (Part II) — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Data Discovery: What it is, Importance, Process + Use Cases

Sep 16, 2024

Competitive Insights : Importance, How to Get + Usage

Sep 13, 2024

Other categories

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

• Section 2: Home
• Developing the Quantitative Research Design
• Qualitative Descriptive Design
• Design and Development Research (DDR) For Instructional Design
• Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Action Research Resource

What is Action Research?

Considerations, creating a plan of action.

• Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate
• SAGE Research Methods
• Research Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• Dataset Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• IRB Resource Center This link opens in a new window

Action research is a qualitative method that focuses on solving problems in social systems, such as schools and other organizations. The emphasis is on solving the presenting problem by generating knowledge and taking action within the social system in which the problem is located. The goal is to generate shared knowledge of how to address the problem by bridging the theory-practice gap (Bourner & Brook, 2019). A general definition of action research is the following: “Action research brings together action and reflection, as well as theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern” (Bradbury, 2015, p. 1). Johnson (2019) defines action research in the field of education as “the process of studying a school, classroom, or teacher-learning situation with the purpose of understanding and improving the quality of actions or instruction” (p.255).

Origins of Action Research

Kurt Lewin is typically credited with being the primary developer of Action Research in the 1940s. Lewin stated that action research can “transform…unrelated individuals, frequently opposed in their outlook and their interests, into cooperative teams, not on the basis of sweetness but on the basis of readiness to face difficulties realistically, to apply honest fact-finding, and to work together to overcome them” (1946, p.211).

Sample Action Research Topics

Some sample action research topics might be the following:

• Examining how classroom teachers perceive and implement new strategies in the classroom--How is the strategy being used? How do students respond to the strategy? How does the strategy inform and change classroom practices? Does the new skill improve test scores? Do classroom teachers perceive the strategy as effective for student learning?
• Examining how students are learning a particular content or objectives--What seems to be effective in enhancing student learning? What skills need to be reinforced? How do students respond to the new content? What is the ability of students to understand the new content?
• Examining how education stakeholders (administrator, parents, teachers, students, etc.) make decisions as members of the school’s improvement team--How are different stakeholders encouraged to participate? How is power distributed? How is equity demonstrated? How is each voice valued? How are priorities and initiatives determined? How does the team evaluate its processes to determine effectiveness?
• Examining the actions that school staff take to create an inclusive and welcoming school climate--Who makes and implements the actions taken to create the school climate? Do members of the school community (teachers, staff, students) view the school climate as inclusive? Do members of the school community feel welcome in the school? How are members of the school community encouraged to become involved in school activities? What actions can school staff take to help others feel a part of the school community?
• Examining the perceptions of teachers with regard to the learning strategies that are more effective with special populations, such as special education students, English Language Learners, etc.—What strategies are perceived to be more effective? How do teachers plan instructionally for unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners? How do teachers deal with the challenges presented by unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners? What supports do teachers need (e.g., professional development, training, coaching) to more effectively deliver instruction to unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners?

Remember—The goal of action research is to find out how individuals perceive and act in a situation so the researcher can develop a plan of action to improve the educational organization. While these topics listed here can be explored using other research designs, action research is the design to use if the outcome is to develop a plan of action for addressing and improving upon a situation in the educational organization.

Considerations for Determining Whether to Use Action Research in an Applied Dissertation

• When considering action research, first determine the problem and the change that needs to occur as a result of addressing the problem (i.e., research problem and research purpose). Remember, the goal of action research is to change how individuals address a particular problem or situation in a way that results in improved practices.
• If the study will be conducted at a school site or educational organization, you may need site permission. Determine whether site permission will be given to conduct the study.
• Consider the individuals who will be part of the data collection (e.g., teachers, administrators, parents, other school staff, etc.). Will there be a representative sample willing to participate in the research?
• If students will be part of the study, does parent consent and student assent need to be obtained?
• As you develop your data collection plan, also consider the timeline for data collection. Is it feasible? For example, if you will be collecting data in a school, consider winter and summer breaks, school events, testing schedules, etc.
• As you develop your data collection plan, consult with your dissertation chair, Subject Matter Expert, NU Academic Success Center, and the NU IRB for resources and guidance.
• Action research is not an experimental design, so you are not trying to accept or reject a hypothesis. There are no independent or dependent variables. It is not generalizable to a larger setting. The goal is to understand what is occurring in the educational setting so that a plan of action can be developed for improved practices.

Considerations for Action Research

Below are some things to consider when developing your applied dissertation proposal using Action Research (adapted from Johnson, 2019):

• Research Topic and Research Problem -- Decide the topic to be studied and then identify the problem by defining the issue in the learning environment. Use references from current peer-reviewed literature for support.
• Purpose of the Study —What need to be different or improved as a result of the study?
• Research Questions —The questions developed should focus on “how” or “what” and explore individuals’ experiences, beliefs, and perceptions.
• Theoretical Framework -- What are the existing theories (theoretical framework) or concepts (conceptual framework) that can be used to support the research. How does existing theory link to what is happening in the educational environment with regard to the topic? What theories have been used to support similar topics in previous research?
• Literature Review -- Examine the literature, focusing on peer-reviewed studies published in journal within the last five years, with the exception of seminal works. What about the topic has already been explored and examined? What were the findings, implications, and limitations of previous research? What is missing from the literature on the topic?  How will your proposed research address the gap in the literature?
• Data Collection —Who will be part of the sample for data collection? What data will be collected from the individuals in the study (e.g., semi-structured interviews, surveys, etc.)? What are the educational artifacts and documents that need to be collected (e.g., teacher less plans, student portfolios, student grades, etc.)? How will they be collected and during what timeframe? (Note--A list of sample data collection methods appears under the heading of “Sample Instrumentation.”)
• Data Analysis —Determine how the data will be analyzed. Some types of analyses that are frequently used for action research include thematic analysis and content analysis.
• Implications —What conclusions can be drawn based upon the findings? How do the findings relate to the existing literature and inform theory in the field of education?
• Recommendations for Practice--Create a Plan of Action— This is a critical step in action research. A plan of action is created based upon the data analysis, findings, and implications. In the Applied Dissertation, this Plan of Action is included with the Recommendations for Practice. The includes specific steps that individuals should take to change practices; recommendations for how those changes will occur (e.g., professional development, training, school improvement planning, committees to develop guidelines and policies, curriculum review committee, etc.); and methods to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness.
• Recommendations for Research —What should future research focus on? What type of studies need to be conducted to build upon or further explore your findings.
• Professional Presentation or Defense —This is where the findings will be presented in a professional presentation or defense as the culmination of your research.

Adapted from Johnson (2019).

Considerations for Sampling and Data Collection

Below are some tips for sampling, sample size, data collection, and instrumentation for Action Research:

Sampling and Sample Size

Action research uses non-probability sampling. This is most commonly means a purposive sampling method that includes specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, convenience sampling can also be used (e.g., a teacher’s classroom).

Critical Concepts in Data Collection

Triangulation- - Dosemagen and Schwalbach (2019) discussed the importance of triangulation in Action Research which enhances the trustworthiness by providing multiple sources of data to analyze and confirm evidence for findings.

Trustworthiness —Trustworthiness assures that research findings are fulfill four critical elements—credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability. Reflect on the following: Are there multiple sources of data? How have you ensured credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability? Have the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of the study been identified and explained? Was the sample a representative sample for the study? Did any individuals leave the study before it ended? How have you controlled researcher biases and beliefs? Are you drawing conclusions that are not supported by data? Have all possible themes been considered? Have you identified other studies with similar results?

Sample Instrumentation

Below are some of the possible methods for collecting action research data:

• Pre- and Post-Surveys for students and/or staff
• Staff Perception Surveys and Questionnaires
• Semi-Structured Interviews
• Focus Groups
• Observations
• Document analysis
• Student work samples
• Classroom artifacts, such as teacher lesson plans, rubrics, checklists, etc.
• Attendance records
• Discipline data
• Journals from students and/or staff
• Portfolios from students and/or staff

A benefit of Action Research is its potential to influence educational practice. Many educators are, by nature of the profession, reflective, inquisitive, and action-oriented. The ultimate outcome of Action Research is to create a plan of action using the research findings to inform future educational practice. A Plan of Action is not meant to be a one-size fits all plan. Instead, it is mean to include specific data-driven and research-based recommendations that result from a detailed analysis of the data, the study findings, and implications of the Action Research study. An effective Plan of Action includes an evaluation component and opportunities for professional educator reflection that allows for authentic discussion aimed at continuous improvement.

When developing a Plan of Action, the following should be considered:

• How can this situation be approached differently in the future?
• What should change in terms of practice?
• What are the specific steps that individuals should take to change practices?
• What is needed to implement the changes being recommended (professional development, training, materials, resources, planning committees, school improvement planning, etc.)?
• How will the effectiveness of the implemented changes be evaluated?
• How will opportunities for professional educator reflection be built into the Action Plan?

Sample Action Research Studies

Anderson, A. J. (2020). A qualitative systematic review of youth participatory action research implementation in U.S. high schools. A merican Journal of Community Psychology, 65 (1/2), 242–257. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajcp.12389

Ayvaz, Ü., & Durmuş, S.(2021). Fostering mathematical creativity with problem posing activities: An action research with gifted students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1871187121000614&site=eds-live

Bellino, M. J. (2018). Closing information gaps in Kakuma Refugee Camp: A youth participatory action research study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62 (3/4), 492–507. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=133626988&site=eds-live

Beneyto, M., Castillo, J., Collet-Sabé, J., & Tort, A. (2019). Can schools become an inclusive space shared by all families? Learnings and debates from an action research project in Catalonia. Educational Action Research, 27 (2), 210–226. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135671904&site=eds-live

Bilican, K., Senler, B., & Karısan, D. (2021). Fostering teacher educators’ professional development through collaborative action research. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17 (2), 459–472. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=149828364&site=eds-live

Black, G. L. (2021). Implementing action research in a teacher preparation program: Opportunities and limitations. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 21 (2), 47–71. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=149682611&site=eds-live

Bozkuş, K., & Bayrak, C. (2019). The Application of the dynamic teacher professional development through experimental action research. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11 (4), 335–352. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135580911&site=eds-live

Christ, T. W. (2018). Mixed methods action research in special education: An overview of a grant-funded model demonstration project. Research in the Schools, 25( 2), 77–88. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135047248&site=eds-live

Jakhelln, R., & Pörn, M. (2019). Challenges in supporting and assessing bachelor’s theses based on action research in initial teacher education. Educational Action Research, 27 (5), 726–741. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=140234116&site=eds-live

Klima Ronen, I. (2020). Action research as a methodology for professional development in leading an educational process. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64 . https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0191491X19302159&site=eds-live

Messiou, K. (2019). Collaborative action research: facilitating inclusion in schools. Educational Action Research, 27 (2), 197–209. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135671898&site=eds-live

Mitchell, D. E. (2018). Say it loud: An action research project examining the afrivisual and africology, Looking for alternative African American community college teaching strategies. Journal of Pan African Studies, 12 (4), 364–487. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=133155045&site=eds-live

Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2018). Action research as a tool for professional development in the K-12 ELT classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 35 (2), 128–139. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=135033158&site=eds-live

Rodriguez, R., Macias, R. L., Perez-Garcia, R., Landeros, G., & Martinez, A. (2018). Action research at the intersection of structural and family violence in an immigrant Latino community: a youth-led study. Journal of Family Violence, 33 (8), 587–596. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=132323375&site=eds-live

Vaughan, M., Boerum, C., & Whitehead, L. (2019). Action research in doctoral coursework: Perceptions of independent research experiences. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13 . https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.17aa0c2976c44a0991e69b2a7b4f321&site=eds-live

Sample Journals for Action Research

Educational Action Research

Canadian Journal of Action Research

Sample Resource Videos

Call-Cummings, M. (2017). Researching racism in schools using participatory action research [Video]. Sage Research Methods  http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?URL=https://methods.sagepub.com/video/researching-racism-in-schools-using-participatory-action-research

Fine, M. (2016). Michelle Fine discusses community based participatory action research [Video]. Sage Knowledge. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?URL=https://sk-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/video/michelle-fine-discusses-community-based-participatory-action-research

Getz, C., Yamamura, E., & Tillapaugh. (2017). Action Research in Education. [Video]. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2tso4klYu8

Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of action research (3rd edition). Sage.

Bradbury, H., Lewis, R. & Embury, D.C. (2019). Education action research: With and for the next generation. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Bourner, T., & Brook, C. (2019). Comparing and contrasting action research and action learning. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage handbook of action research . Sage. https://www-doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.4135/9781473921290

Dosemagen, D.M. & Schwalback, E.M. (2019). Legitimacy of and value in action research. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Johnson, A. (2019). Action research for teacher professional development. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In G.W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics (compiled in 1948). Harper and Row.

Mertler, C. A. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of action research in education. John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/detail.action?docID=5683581

• << Previous: Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Next: Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2023 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1013605

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

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

1 What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is the nature of action research?
• How does action research develop in the classroom?
• What models of action research work best for your classroom?
• What are the epistemological, ontological, theoretical underpinnings of action research?

Educational research provides a vast landscape of knowledge on topics related to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, students’ cognitive and affective needs, cultural and socio-economic factors of schools, and many other factors considered viable to improving schools. Educational stakeholders rely on research to make informed decisions that ultimately affect the quality of schooling for their students. Accordingly, the purpose of educational research is to engage in disciplined inquiry to generate knowledge on topics significant to the students, teachers, administrators, schools, and other educational stakeholders. Just as the topics of educational research vary, so do the approaches to conducting educational research in the classroom. Your approach to research will be shaped by your context, your professional identity, and paradigm (set of beliefs and assumptions that guide your inquiry). These will all be key factors in how you generate knowledge related to your work as an educator.

Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educational practitioners and professionals to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice. In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their classroom. When students are actively engaged in learning, the classroom can be dynamic and uncertain, demanding the constant attention of the educator. Considering these demands, educators are often only able to engage in reflection that is fleeting, and for the purpose of accommodation, modification, or formative assessment. Action research offers one path to more deliberate, substantial, and critical reflection that can be documented and analyzed to improve an educator’s practice.

Purpose of Action Research

As one of many approaches to educational research, it is important to distinguish the potential purposes of action research in the classroom. This book focuses on action research as a method to enable and support educators in pursuing effective pedagogical practices by transforming the quality of teaching decisions and actions, to subsequently enhance student engagement and learning. Being mindful of this purpose, the following aspects of action research are important to consider as you contemplate and engage with action research methodology in your classroom:

• Action research is a process for improving educational practice. Its methods involve action, evaluation, and reflection. It is a process to gather evidence to implement change in practices.
• Action research is participative and collaborative. It is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• Action research is situation and context-based.
• Action research develops reflection practices based on the interpretations made by participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and application.
• Action research can be based in problem-solving, if the solution to the problem results in the improvement of practice.
• Action research is iterative; plans are created, implemented, revised, then implemented, lending itself to an ongoing process of reflection and revision.
• In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy, 2010, pgs. 1-2).

In thinking about the purpose of action research, it is helpful to situate action research as a distinct paradigm of educational research. I like to think about action research as part of the larger concept of living knowledge. Living knowledge has been characterized as “a quest for life, to understand life and to create… knowledge which is valid for the people with whom I work and for myself” (Swantz, in Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 1). Why should educators care about living knowledge as part of educational research? As mentioned above, action research is meant “to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2010, pg. 2). However, it is also about:

creating new forms of understanding, since action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless. The participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action, which is its focus. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 2)

In an effort to further situate action research as living knowledge, Jean McNiff reminds us that “there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘action research’” (2013, pg. 24). In other words, action research is not static or finished, it defines itself as it proceeds. McNiff’s reminder characterizes action research as action-oriented, and a process that individuals go through to make their learning public to explain how it informs their practice. Action research does not derive its meaning from an abstract idea, or a self-contained discovery – action research’s meaning stems from the way educators negotiate the problems and successes of living and working in the classroom, school, and community.

While we can debate the idea of action research, there are people who are action researchers, and they use the idea of action research to develop principles and theories to guide their practice. Action research, then, refers to an organization of principles that guide action researchers as they act on shared beliefs, commitments, and expectations in their inquiry.

Reflection and the Process of Action Research

When an individual engages in reflection on their actions or experiences, it is typically for the purpose of better understanding those experiences, or the consequences of those actions to improve related action and experiences in the future. Reflection in this way develops knowledge around these actions and experiences to help us better regulate those actions in the future. The reflective process generates new knowledge regularly for classroom teachers and informs their classroom actions.

Unfortunately, the knowledge generated by educators through the reflective process is not always prioritized among the other sources of knowledge educators are expected to utilize in the classroom. Educators are expected to draw upon formal types of knowledge, such as textbooks, content standards, teaching standards, district curriculum and behavioral programs, etc., to gain new knowledge and make decisions in the classroom. While these forms of knowledge are important, the reflective knowledge that educators generate through their pedagogy is the amalgamation of these types of knowledge enacted in the classroom. Therefore, reflective knowledge is uniquely developed based on the action and implementation of an educator’s pedagogy in the classroom. Action research offers a way to formalize the knowledge generated by educators so that it can be utilized and disseminated throughout the teaching profession.

Research is concerned with the generation of knowledge, and typically creating knowledge related to a concept, idea, phenomenon, or topic. Action research generates knowledge around inquiry in practical educational contexts. Action research allows educators to learn through their actions with the purpose of developing personally or professionally. Due to its participatory nature, the process of action research is also distinct in educational research. There are many models for how the action research process takes shape. I will share a few of those here. Each model utilizes the following processes to some extent:

• Plan a change;
• Take action to enact the change;
• Observe the process and consequences of the change;
• Reflect on the process and consequences;
• Act, observe, & reflect again and so on.

Figure 1.1 Basic action research cycle

There are many other models that supplement the basic process of action research with other aspects of the research process to consider. For example, figure 1.2 illustrates a spiral model of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (2004). The spiral model emphasizes the cyclical process that moves beyond the initial plan for change. The spiral model also emphasizes revisiting the initial plan and revising based on the initial cycle of research:

Figure 1.2 Interpretation of action research spiral, Kemmis and McTaggart (2004, p. 595)

Other models of action research reorganize the process to emphasize the distinct ways knowledge takes shape in the reflection process. O’Leary’s (2004, p. 141) model, for example, recognizes that the research may take shape in the classroom as knowledge emerges from the teacher’s observations. O’Leary highlights the need for action research to be focused on situational understanding and implementation of action, initiated organically from real-time issues:

Figure 1.3 Interpretation of O’Leary’s cycles of research, O’Leary (2000, p. 141)

Lastly, Macintyre’s (2000, p. 1) model, offers a different characterization of the action research process. Macintyre emphasizes a messier process of research with the initial reflections and conclusions as the benchmarks for guiding the research process. Macintyre emphasizes the flexibility in planning, acting, and observing stages to allow the process to be naturalistic. Our interpretation of Macintyre process is below:

Figure 1.4 Interpretation of the action research cycle, Macintyre (2000, p. 1)

We believe it is important to prioritize the flexibility of the process, and encourage you to only use these models as basic guides for your process. Your process may look similar, or you may diverge from these models as you better understand your students, context, and data.

Definitions of Action Research and Examples

At this point, it may be helpful for readers to have a working definition of action research and some examples to illustrate the methodology in the classroom. Bassey (1998, p. 93) offers a very practical definition and describes “action research as an inquiry which is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate and then to change, in order to improve educational practice.” Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 192) situate action research differently, and describe action research as emergent, writing:

essentially an on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation. This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews and case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, redefinitions, as necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

Lastly, Koshy (2010, p. 9) describes action research as:

a constructive inquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

These definitions highlight the distinct features of action research and emphasize the purposeful intent of action researchers to improve, refine, reform, and problem-solve issues in their educational context. To better understand the distinctness of action research, these are some examples of action research topics:

Examples of Action Research Topics

• Flexible seating in 4th grade classroom to increase effective collaborative learning.
• Structured homework protocols for increasing student achievement.
• Developing a system of formative feedback for 8th grade writing.
• Using music to stimulate creative writing.
• Weekly brown bag lunch sessions to improve responses to PD from staff.
• Using exercise balls as chairs for better classroom management.

Action Research in Theory

Action research-based inquiry in educational contexts and classrooms involves distinct participants – students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders within the system. All of these participants are engaged in activities to benefit the students, and subsequently society as a whole. Action research contributes to these activities and potentially enhances the participants’ roles in the education system. Participants’ roles are enhanced based on two underlying principles:

• communities, schools, and classrooms are sites of socially mediated actions, and action research provides a greater understanding of self and new knowledge of how to negotiate these socially mediated environments;
• communities, schools, and classrooms are part of social systems in which humans interact with many cultural tools, and action research provides a basis to construct and analyze these interactions.

In our quest for knowledge and understanding, we have consistently analyzed human experience over time and have distinguished between types of reality. Humans have constantly sought “facts” and “truth” about reality that can be empirically demonstrated or observed.

Social systems are based on beliefs, and generally, beliefs about what will benefit the greatest amount of people in that society. Beliefs, and more specifically the rationale or support for beliefs, are not always easy to demonstrate or observe as part of our reality. Take the example of an English Language Arts teacher who prioritizes argumentative writing in her class. She believes that argumentative writing demonstrates the mechanics of writing best among types of writing, while also providing students a skill they will need as citizens and professionals. While we can observe the students writing, and we can assess their ability to develop a written argument, it is difficult to observe the students’ understanding of argumentative writing and its purpose in their future. This relates to the teacher’s beliefs about argumentative writing; we cannot observe the real value of the teaching of argumentative writing. The teacher’s rationale and beliefs about teaching argumentative writing are bound to the social system and the skills their students will need to be active parts of that system. Therefore, our goal through action research is to demonstrate the best ways to teach argumentative writing to help all participants understand its value as part of a social system.

The knowledge that is conveyed in a classroom is bound to, and justified by, a social system. A postmodernist approach to understanding our world seeks knowledge within a social system, which is directly opposed to the empirical or positivist approach which demands evidence based on logic or science as rationale for beliefs. Action research does not rely on a positivist viewpoint to develop evidence and conclusions as part of the research process. Action research offers a postmodernist stance to epistemology (theory of knowledge) and supports developing questions and new inquiries during the research process. In this way action research is an emergent process that allows beliefs and decisions to be negotiated as reality and meaning are being constructed in the socially mediated space of the classroom.

Theorizing Action Research for the Classroom

All research, at its core, is for the purpose of generating new knowledge and contributing to the knowledge base of educational research. Action researchers in the classroom want to explore methods of improving their pedagogy and practice. The starting place of their inquiry stems from their pedagogy and practice, so by nature the knowledge created from their inquiry is often contextually specific to their classroom, school, or community. Therefore, we should examine the theoretical underpinnings of action research for the classroom. It is important to connect action research conceptually to experience; for example, Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 105) make these connections:

• Action research is context bound and addresses real life problems.
• Action research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously.
• The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action or these reflections and action lead to the construction of new meanings.
• The credibility/validity of action research knowledge is measured according to whether the actions that arise from it solve problems (workability) and increase participants’ control over their own situation.

Educators who engage in action research will generate new knowledge and beliefs based on their experiences in the classroom. Let us emphasize that these are all important to you and your work, as both an educator and researcher. It is these experiences, beliefs, and theories that are often discounted when more official forms of knowledge (e.g., textbooks, curriculum standards, districts standards) are prioritized. These beliefs and theories based on experiences should be valued and explored further, and this is one of the primary purposes of action research in the classroom. These beliefs and theories should be valued because they were meaningful aspects of knowledge constructed from teachers’ experiences. Developing meaning and knowledge in this way forms the basis of constructivist ideology, just as teachers often try to get their students to construct their own meanings and understandings when experiencing new ideas.  

Classroom Teachers Constructing their Own Knowledge

Most of you are probably at least minimally familiar with constructivism, or the process of constructing knowledge. However, what is constructivism precisely, for the purposes of action research? Many scholars have theorized constructivism and have identified two key attributes (Koshy, 2010; von Glasersfeld, 1987):

• Knowledge is not passively received, but actively developed through an individual’s cognition;
• Human cognition is adaptive and finds purpose in organizing the new experiences of the world, instead of settling for absolute or objective truth.

Considering these two attributes, constructivism is distinct from conventional knowledge formation because people can develop a theory of knowledge that orders and organizes the world based on their experiences, instead of an objective or neutral reality. When individuals construct knowledge, there are interactions between an individual and their environment where communication, negotiation and meaning-making are collectively developing knowledge. For most educators, constructivism may be a natural inclination of their pedagogy. Action researchers have a similar relationship to constructivism because they are actively engaged in a process of constructing knowledge. However, their constructions may be more formal and based on the data they collect in the research process. Action researchers also are engaged in the meaning making process, making interpretations from their data. These aspects of the action research process situate them in the constructivist ideology. Just like constructivist educators, action researchers’ constructions of knowledge will be affected by their individual and professional ideas and values, as well as the ecological context in which they work (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). The relations between constructivist inquiry and action research is important, as Lincoln (2001, p. 130) states:

much of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological belief systems are the same or similar, and methodologically, constructivists and action researchers work in similar ways, relying on qualitative methods in face-to-face work, while buttressing information, data and background with quantitative method work when necessary or useful.

While there are many links between action research and educators in the classroom, constructivism offers the most familiar and practical threads to bind the beliefs of educators and action researchers.  

Epistemology, Ontology, and Action Research

It is also important for educators to consider the philosophical stances related to action research to better situate it with their beliefs and reality. When researchers make decisions about the methodology they intend to use, they will consider their ontological and epistemological stances. It is vital that researchers clearly distinguish their philosophical stances and understand the implications of their stance in the research process, especially when collecting and analyzing their data. In what follows, we will discuss ontological and epistemological stances in relation to action research methodology.

Ontology, or the theory of being, is concerned with the claims or assumptions we make about ourselves within our social reality – what do we think exists, what does it look like, what entities are involved and how do these entities interact with each other (Blaikie, 2007). In relation to the discussion of constructivism, generally action researchers would consider their educational reality as socially constructed. Social construction of reality happens when individuals interact in a social system. Meaningful construction of concepts and representations of reality develop through an individual’s interpretations of others’ actions. These interpretations become agreed upon by members of a social system and become part of social fabric, reproduced as knowledge and beliefs to develop assumptions about reality. Researchers develop meaningful constructions based on their experiences and through communication. Educators as action researchers will be examining the socially constructed reality of schools. In the United States, many of our concepts, knowledge, and beliefs about schooling have been socially constructed over the last hundred years. For example, a group of teachers may look at why fewer female students enroll in upper-level science courses at their school. This question deals directly with the social construction of gender and specifically what careers females have been conditioned to pursue. We know this is a social construction in some school social systems because in other parts of the world, or even the United States, there are schools that have more females enrolled in upper level science courses than male students. Therefore, the educators conducting the research have to recognize the socially constructed reality of their school and consider this reality throughout the research process. Action researchers will use methods of data collection that support their ontological stance and clarify their theoretical stance throughout the research process.

Koshy (2010, p. 23-24) offers another example of addressing the ontological challenges in the classroom:

A teacher who was concerned with increasing her pupils’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning decided to introduce learning diaries which the children could take home. They were invited to record their reactions to the day’s lessons and what they had learnt. The teacher reported in her field diary that the learning diaries stimulated the children’s interest in her lessons, increased their capacity to learn, and generally improved their level of participation in lessons. The challenge for the teacher here is in the analysis and interpretation of the multiplicity of factors accompanying the use of diaries. The diaries were taken home so the entries may have been influenced by discussions with parents. Another possibility is that children felt the need to please their teacher. Another possible influence was that their increased motivation was as a result of the difference in style of teaching which included more discussions in the classroom based on the entries in the dairies.

Here you can see the challenge for the action researcher is working in a social context with multiple factors, values, and experiences that were outside of the teacher’s control. The teacher was only responsible for introducing the diaries as a new style of learning. The students’ engagement and interactions with this new style of learning were all based upon their socially constructed notions of learning inside and outside of the classroom. A researcher with a positivist ontological stance would not consider these factors, and instead might simply conclude that the dairies increased motivation and interest in the topic, as a result of introducing the diaries as a learning strategy.

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, signifies a philosophical view of what counts as knowledge – it justifies what is possible to be known and what criteria distinguishes knowledge from beliefs (Blaikie, 1993). Positivist researchers, for example, consider knowledge to be certain and discovered through scientific processes. Action researchers collect data that is more subjective and examine personal experience, insights, and beliefs.

Action researchers utilize interpretation as a means for knowledge creation. Action researchers have many epistemologies to choose from as means of situating the types of knowledge they will generate by interpreting the data from their research. For example, Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009) identified several common epistemologies in their article that examined epistemological awareness in qualitative educational research, such as: objectivism, subjectivism, constructionism, contextualism, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, idealism, naturalized epistemology, externalism, relativism, skepticism, and pluralism. All of these epistemological stances have implications for the research process, especially data collection and analysis. Please see the table on pages 689-90, linked below for a sketch of these potential implications:

Again, Koshy (2010, p. 24) provides an excellent example to illustrate the epistemological challenges within action research:

A teacher of 11-year-old children decided to carry out an action research project which involved a change in style in teaching mathematics. Instead of giving children mathematical tasks displaying the subject as abstract principles, she made links with other subjects which she believed would encourage children to see mathematics as a discipline that could improve their understanding of the environment and historic events. At the conclusion of the project, the teacher reported that applicable mathematics generated greater enthusiasm and understanding of the subject.

The educator/researcher engaged in action research-based inquiry to improve an aspect of her pedagogy. She generated knowledge that indicated she had improved her students’ understanding of mathematics by integrating it with other subjects – specifically in the social and ecological context of her classroom, school, and community. She valued constructivism and students generating their own understanding of mathematics based on related topics in other subjects. Action researchers working in a social context do not generate certain knowledge, but knowledge that emerges and can be observed and researched again, building upon their knowledge each time.

Researcher Positionality in Action Research

In this first chapter, we have discussed a lot about the role of experiences in sparking the research process in the classroom. Your experiences as an educator will shape how you approach action research in your classroom. Your experiences as a person in general will also shape how you create knowledge from your research process. In particular, your experiences will shape how you make meaning from your findings. It is important to be clear about your experiences when developing your methodology too. This is referred to as researcher positionality. Maher and Tetreault (1993, p. 118) define positionality as:

Gender, race, class, and other aspects of our identities are markers of relational positions rather than essential qualities. Knowledge is valid when it includes an acknowledgment of the knower’s specific position in any context, because changing contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and our knowledge in any given situation.

By presenting your positionality in the research process, you are signifying the type of socially constructed, and other types of, knowledge you will be using to make sense of the data. As Maher and Tetreault explain, this increases the trustworthiness of your conclusions about the data. This would not be possible with a positivist ontology. We will discuss positionality more in chapter 6, but we wanted to connect it to the overall theoretical underpinnings of action research.

Advantages of Engaging in Action Research in the Classroom

In the following chapters, we will discuss how action research takes shape in your classroom, and we wanted to briefly summarize the key advantages to action research methodology over other types of research methodology. As Koshy (2010, p. 25) notes, action research provides useful methodology for school and classroom research because:

Advantages of Action Research for the Classroom

• research can be set within a specific context or situation;
• researchers can be participants – they don’t have to be distant and detached from the situation;
• it involves continuous evaluation and modifications can be made easily as the project progresses;
• there are opportunities for theory to emerge from the research rather than always follow a previously formulated theory;
• the study can lead to open-ended outcomes;
• through action research, a researcher can bring a story to life.

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Guide to Writing the Results and Discussion Sections of a Scientific Article

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing ( Bordage, 2001 ). In addition, a research paper must be clear, concise, and effective when presenting the information in an organized structure with a logical manner ( Sandercock, 2013 ).

In this article, we will take a closer look at the results and discussion section. Composing each of these carefully with sufficient data and well-constructed arguments can help improve your paper overall.

The results section of your research paper contains a description about the main findings of your research, whereas the discussion section interprets the results for readers and provides the significance of the findings. The discussion should not repeat the results.

Let’s dive in a little deeper about how to properly, and clearly organize each part.

How to Organize the Results Section

Since your results follow your methods, you’ll want to provide information about what you discovered from the methods you used, such as your research data. In other words, what were the outcomes of the methods you used?

You may also include information about the measurement of your data, variables, treatments, and statistical analyses.

To start, organize your research data based on how important those are in relation to your research questions. This section should focus on showing major results that support or reject your research hypothesis. Include your least important data as supplemental materials when submitting to the journal.

The next step is to prioritize your research data based on importance – focusing heavily on the information that directly relates to your research questions using the subheadings.

The organization of the subheadings for the results section usually mirrors the methods section. It should follow a logical and chronological order.

Subheading organization

Subheadings within your results section are primarily going to detail major findings within each important experiment. And the first paragraph of your results section should be dedicated to your main findings (findings that answer your overall research question and lead to your conclusion) (Hofmann, 2013).

In the book “Writing in the Biological Sciences,” author Angelika Hofmann recommends you structure your results subsection paragraphs as follows:

• Experimental purpose
• Interpretation

Each subheading may contain a combination of ( Bahadoran, 2019 ; Hofmann, 2013, pg. 62-63):

• Text: to explain about the research data
• Figures: to display the research data and to show trends or relationships, for examples using graphs or gel pictures.
• Tables: to represent a large data and exact value

Decide on the best way to present your data — in the form of text, figures or tables (Hofmann, 2013).

Data or Results?

Sometimes we get confused about how to differentiate between data and results . Data are information (facts or numbers) that you collected from your research ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

Whereas, results are the texts presenting the meaning of your research data ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

One mistake that some authors often make is to use text to direct the reader to find a specific table or figure without further explanation. This can confuse readers when they interpret data completely different from what the authors had in mind. So, you should briefly explain your data to make your information clear for the readers.

Common Elements in Figures and Tables

Figures and tables present information about your research data visually. The use of these visual elements is necessary so readers can summarize, compare, and interpret large data at a glance. You can use graphs or figures to compare groups or patterns. Whereas, tables are ideal to present large quantities of data and exact values.

Several components are needed to create your figures and tables. These elements are important to sort your data based on groups (or treatments). It will be easier for the readers to see the similarities and differences among the groups.

When presenting your research data in the form of figures and tables, organize your data based on the steps of the research leading you into a conclusion.

Common elements of the figures (Bahadoran, 2019):

• Figure number
• Figure title
• Figure legend (for example a brief title, experimental/statistical information, or definition of symbols).

Tables in the result section may contain several elements (Bahadoran, 2019):

• Table number
• Table title
• Row headings (for example groups)
• Column headings
• Row subheadings (for example categories or groups)
• Column subheadings (for example categories or variables)
• Footnotes (for example statistical analyses)

Tips to Write the Results Section

• Direct the reader to the research data and explain the meaning of the data.
• Avoid using a repetitive sentence structure to explain a new set of data.
• Write and highlight important findings in your results.
• Use the same order as the subheadings of the methods section.
• Match the results with the research questions from the introduction. Your results should answer your research questions.
• Be sure to mention the figures and tables in the body of your text.
• Make sure there is no mismatch between the table number or the figure number in text and in figure/tables.
• Only present data that support the significance of your study. You can provide additional data in tables and figures as supplementary material.

How to Organize the Discussion Section

It’s not enough to use figures and tables in your results section to convince your readers about the importance of your findings. You need to support your results section by providing more explanation in the discussion section about what you found.

In the discussion section, based on your findings, you defend the answers to your research questions and create arguments to support your conclusions.

Below is a list of questions to guide you when organizing the structure of your discussion section ( Viera et al ., 2018 ):

• What experiments did you conduct and what were the results?
• What do the results mean?
• What were the important results from your study?
• How did the results answer your research questions?
• Did your results support your hypothesis or reject your hypothesis?
• What are the variables or factors that might affect your results?
• What were the strengths and limitations of your study?
• What other published works support your findings?
• What other published works contradict your findings?
• What possible factors might cause your findings different from other findings?
• What is the significance of your research?
• What are new research questions to explore based on your findings?

Organizing the Discussion Section

The structure of the discussion section may be different from one paper to another, but it commonly has a beginning, middle-, and end- to the section.

One way to organize the structure of the discussion section is by dividing it into three parts (Ghasemi, 2019):

• The beginning: The first sentence of the first paragraph should state the importance and the new findings of your research. The first paragraph may also include answers to your research questions mentioned in your introduction section.
• The middle: The middle should contain the interpretations of the results to defend your answers, the strength of the study, the limitations of the study, and an update literature review that validates your findings.
• The end: The end concludes the study and the significance of your research.

Another possible way to organize the discussion section was proposed by Michael Docherty in British Medical Journal: is by using this structure ( Docherty, 1999 ):

• Discussion of important findings
• Comparison of your results with other published works
• Include the strengths and limitations of the study
• Conclusion and possible implications of your study, including the significance of your study – address why and how is it meaningful
• Future research questions based on your findings

Finally, a last option is structuring your discussion this way (Hofmann, 2013, pg. 104):

• First Paragraph: Provide an interpretation based on your key findings. Then support your interpretation with evidence.
• Secondary results
• Limitations
• Unexpected findings
• Comparisons to previous publications
• Last Paragraph: The last paragraph should provide a summarization (conclusion) along with detailing the significance, implications and potential next steps.

Remember, at the heart of the discussion section is presenting an interpretation of your major findings.

Tips to Write the Discussion Section

• Highlight the significance of your findings
• Mention how the study will fill a gap in knowledge.
• Indicate the implication of your research.
• Avoid generalizing, misinterpreting your results, drawing a conclusion with no supportive findings from your results.

Aggarwal, R., & Sahni, P. (2018). The Results Section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 21-38): Springer.

Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Zadeh-Vakili, A., Hosseinpanah, F., & Ghasemi, A. (2019). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Results. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(2).

Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic medicine, 76(9), 889-896.

Cals, J. W., & Kotz, D. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: discussion. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(10), 1064.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: Much the same as that for structuring abstracts. In: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.

Faber, J. (2017). Writing scientific manuscripts: most common mistakes. Dental press journal of orthodontics, 22(5), 113-117.

Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2018). The discussion section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 39-48): Springer.

Ghasemi, A., Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Hosseinpanah, F., Shiva, N., & Zadeh-Vakili, A. (2019). The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(3).

Hofmann, A. H. (2013). Writing in the biological sciences: a comprehensive resource for scientific communication . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kotz, D., & Cals, J. W. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(9), 945.

Mack, C. (2014). How to Write a Good Scientific Paper: Structure and Organization. Journal of Micro/ Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 13. doi:10.1117/1.JMM.13.4.040101

Moore, A. (2016). What's in a Discussion section? Exploiting 2‐dimensionality in the online world…. Bioessays, 38(12), 1185-1185.

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2013). Scientific writing: easy when you know how: John Wiley & Sons.

Sandercock, P. M. L. (2012). How to write and publish a scientific article. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 45(1), 1-5.

Teo, E. K. (2016). Effective Medical Writing: The Write Way to Get Published. Singapore Medical Journal, 57(9), 523-523. doi:10.11622/smedj.2016156

Van Way III, C. W. (2007). Writing a scientific paper. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 22(6), 636-640.

Vieira, R. F., Lima, R. C. d., & Mizubuti, E. S. G. (2019). How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 41.

Related Articles

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing (Bordage, 200...

How to Survive and Complete a Thesis or a Dissertation

Writing a thesis or a dissertation can be a challenging process for many graduate students. There ar...

15 Laboratory Notebook Tips to Help with your Research Manuscript

Your lab notebook is a foundation to your research manuscript. It serves almost as a rudimentary dra...

What is a Good Way to Read a Scientific Paper?

Have you wished you could read a scientific article like reading a newspaper article? More often, it...

Join our list to receive promos and articles.

• Competent Cells
• Lab Startup
• Z')" data-type="collection" title="Products A->Z" target="_self" href="/collection/products-a-to-z">Products A->Z
• GoldBio Resources
• GoldBio Sales Team
• GoldBio Distributors
• Duchefa Direct
• Sign up for Promos
• Terms & Conditions
• ISO Certification
• Agarose Resins
• Antibiotics & Selection
• Biochemical Reagents
• Bioluminescence
• Buffers & Reagents
• Cell Culture
• Cloning & Induction
• Competent Cells and Transformation
• Detergents & Membrane Agents
• DNA Amplification
• Enzymes, Inhibitors & Substrates
• Growth Factors and Cytokines
• Lab Tools & Accessories
• Plant Research and Reagents
• Protein Research & Analysis
• Protein Expression & Purification
• Reducing Agents
• GoldBio Merch & Collectibles

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

14% of Republicans would 'take action to overturn' the election if Trump loses, study finds

Nearly half of Republicans say they won’t accept the results of  the presidential election  if  their candidate  loses, and some of them say they would “take action to overturn” the results, according to data released Tuesday.

About a quarter of Democrats said they wouldn’t accept the results if  their candidate  loses, and fewer Democrats than Republicans said they would “take action to overturn” the results.

The nonpartisan World Justice Project, which keeps an index of how strong the rule of law is in more than 100 countries, gathered the data as part of a larger study. The poll was conducted through online interviews with 1,046 American households between June 10 and June 18.

The report did not ask people what specific “action” they would take to overturn the election results, just that that 46% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats wouldn't accept results, and 14% of Republicans compared to 11% of Democrats said they would "take action."

Commentary: Donald Trump can't decide if he dislikes abortion or Ron DeSantis more

Elizabeth Andersen, the group’s executive director, said the results are “kind of startling” and amount to about one-third of Americans being unwilling to accept the presidential election results if their candidate loses.

Only 29% of Republicans said that the electoral process is free from corruption, compared to 56% of Democrats. One of the biggest gaps was in response to the statement, “Votes are counted accurately.” Only 43% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats agreed.

Democrats were less likely than Republicans to believe that “people are able to vote conveniently” and that “voting access is equal for all citizens."

“You can see quite low levels of trust in the process, particularly among Republicans, but also, in some areas, among Democrats,” Andersen said. “It’s not zero by any stretch of the imagination. So that really seems to us like a recipe for potential conflict in the aftermath of the election.”

Commentary: In presidential debate, Donald Trump couldn't escape Florida abortion dilemma |

Last week , the Public Religion Research Institute found that one-in-six Americans supports political violence, including about one-in-four Republicans.

A survey from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University  released in May  found that 36% of local election officials experienced harassment or abuse, and 16% were threatened.

Seven-in-10 election officials surveyed said threats increased from 2020, and just under three-in-10 said threats stayed about the same.

“When selling anything to an audience, visible publicity is key:” experiences, barriers, and enablers to participate in a COVID-19 study in Malawi

• Open access
• Published: 16 September 2024
• Volume 24 , article number  207 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Vanessa Mdala 1 ,
• Deborah Nyirenda 2 ,
• Samuel Mpinganjira 3 ,
• Victor Mwapasa 1 &
• Alinane Linda Nyondo-Mipando 2 , 3  

Many studies in infectious diseases struggle to recruit participants. The SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission dynamics, and household impact in Malawi (SCATHIM) study reported a refusal rate of 57.2%. Adequate publicity can lead to more people participating in studies. This study explored the reasons for participating in the SCATHIM study.

A descriptive qualitative study informed by the theory of reasoned action was conducted in Blantyre between January 2022 and March 2022 to assess factors that influence participation in a COVID-19 study among 10 index cases, 10 caregivers, 10 study decliners, and 5 research staff. The data were collected via in-depth interview guides, audio recorded, transcribed, managed via NVIVO and analysed via a thematic approach.

The factors that motivated participation in the study included one’s knowledge of COVID-19; potential access to medical services, including free COVID-19 tests for members of the household; financial reimbursements; and the ability to contribute scientific knowledge. The barriers to participation included minimal publicity of the study amidst a novel condition, perceived stigma and discrimination, perceived invasion of privacy, discomfort with the testing procedures, and suboptimal financial reimbursements.

Effective publicity and outreach strategies have the potential to decrease refusal rates in study participation, especially if a condition is novel. Studies on infectious diseases should address stigma and discrimination to promote participation and ensure participant safety.

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Qualitative Assessment of the Experiences of Pregnant Latinas Infected with COVID-19 and Their Perspectives on Vaccination

Choosing and accessing COVID-19 treatment options: a qualitative study with patients, caregivers, and health care providers in Lebanon

Perspectives on covid-19 testing policies and practices: a qualitative study with scientific advisors and nhs health care workers in england, explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics
• Artificial Intelligence

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious and fatal disease that evokes fear among communities. As of December 3, 2022, Malawi alone recorded a total of 88,086 confirmed cases of infection and 2,685 deaths [ 1 ].

Since then, Malawi has implemented various pandemic-related studies. Through Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, a study was undertaken to understand SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission dynamics, and household impact in Malawi (SCATHIM). The key goal was to understand the secondary attack rate of the COVID-19 virus from an index case in a household setting. However, during the implementation of the study, investigators noted a refusal rate of 57.2% among the eligible potential participants [ 2 ]. A key determinant of a successful study is to efficiently recruit and retain an adequate number of study participants [ 3 ]. However, worldwide, medical studies face pressure and several challenges concerning the recruitment and retention of participants. Studies regarding highly infectious diseases tend to face even more challenges with the recruitment of participants [ 4 ].

Several factors influence participation in studies. The provision of financial incentives in a COVID-19 study in South Korea was a catalyst for increasing the voluntary participation and testing of individuals, with the potential to limit the rapid spread of the infection at a lower cost [ 5 ]. Previous studies further suggest that access to better treatment [ 6 ] and approval and support by family and friends aid people in participating in a research study [ 7 ]. The factors that impede participation in clinical studies include a lack of approval by friends and family [ 8 ]; a lack of study benefits at the individual or community level; limited knowledge and understanding of the research process, which is more prevalent among participants living in rural areas; and perceptions of flawed recruitment measures that lack community engagement [ 9 ]. Understanding the recruitment process implies that research participants can comprehend the information provided and appreciate its relevance to their situations [ 9 ]. A study conducted in Blantyre suggested seeking consent from the chief or community leaders before a sensitization meeting in the targeted community as a strategy for recruiting participants into a study because it creates a sense of security and safety among the community members [ 9 ].

In the SCATHIM study, individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 for the first time were called and notified of their results by the Blantyre district health office team. They were further notified that a KuHES team was interested in contacting them to explain the COVID-19 study that they were conducting. Those who accepted the invitation were called by the study team for more discussions on the matter. Those who agreed were visited at their homes and consented to participate in the study, i.e., the index case and their household contacts. The qualitative component of the study included caregiver and index cases, where a caregiver was defined as “one providing most of the care to the patient.” Participants in the SCATHIM study undertook several responsibilities, including permitting weekly visitations by the study team to monitor their clinical status, collecting nasal and throat swabs for retesting for COVID-19, and collecting blood samples for immunological tests.

The study managed to enrol 581 participants, representing 21% of the total population contacted. A total of 153 (95%) index cases and 344 (84%) contacts continued in the study until day 28 (study exit day). It is not known what motivated a smaller proportion of eligible people to enroll and remain in this study, as well as the factors associated with nonparticipation in studies of highly infectious diseases such as COVID-19. This study explored the experiences and factors associated with participating in a COVID-19 study among index cases, caregivers, and research staff. Exploring the participants’ experiences as well as learning their enablers and barriers to study participation is one way to help in finding solutions in study recruitment and retaining participants.

Conceptual framework

This study used the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which is a behavioural theory that assumes that human beings are rational and make systematic use of the information available to them. People consider the implications of their actions before they decide whether to engage in certain behaviours. The TRA was an ideal framework for this research because it enhanced the exploration of motivational influences on the basis of one’s attitudes, intent, and subjective norms on whether to participate in a study of a highly infectious disease.

Study design

This descriptive qualitative research was nested within the SCATHIM study (mother study) (Fig.  1 ). SCATHIM is a prospective cohort study that was undertaken by Kamuzu University of Health Sciences researchers to determine the infection transmission dynamics and household socioeconomic impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Malawian settings. In the present study, in-depth interviews were conducted with index cases (first laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the household), their caregivers, those who refused to participate in the mother study, and SCATHIM research staff.

Illustration of the flow of the SCATHIM study indicating sections where participants were drawn from

Study setting

The study replicated the same setting as the mother study, which was conducted in communities located in Blantyre, a district located in southern Malawi with a population of 1.25 million as per the 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Census Report, of whom 64% reside in urban areas [ 10 ]. Like the mother study, the study sought participants from rural, urban low-density, and urban high-density areas, hence providing good representation. The study location was selected to include views of people living in various social and economic statuses to broaden the scope of the responses.

Sample size

A purposive sampling method was used to select 35 study participants while applying maximum variation. In this case, the area of residence was the variable that determined the maximum variation of the sample. We selected index cases that were willing to share their experiences after they participated in the SCATHIM study. Caregivers were included to understand the reasons why their patient (the index case) chose to participate, whereas study decliners were selected to understand the reasons that made them refuse participation. We further included research staff to explore their experiences while conducting the study, as they had direct encounters with index cases, caregivers, and refusals.

Data collection

Data were collected via telephone by the primary researcher via a semistructured tool (Supplementary File 1 ) from January to March 2022. At the time of data collection, the researcher was studying for a master’s degree in public health and had a degree in media and communication. The researcher is female, has received training in qualitative research, and was working under the mentorship of her supervisor, who is a seasoned qualitative researcher. The researcher introduced herself as a student who was pursuing her studies at Kamuzu University of Health Sciences and had no prior relationship with the participants. We opted for telephone interviews because they ensured convenience and ease of data collection, as the qualitative data in the mother study utilized the same approach, and a database of contact details was readily available to the researcher. Additionally, in January 2022, when the researcher started collecting data, there was a surge in COVID-19 cases; hence, interviews were conducted over the phone. The data tools were pretested on one research staff member and one caregiver to determine their ability to collect reliable and valid data before data collection. After the pretest, the tools were revised to include more open-ended questions and probes to ensure that all nuances were explored. None of the participants refused to participate in the study, and they were all audio-recorded.

The interviews were conducted in English as well as Chichewa as per the participant’s preference and lasted for 30 min on average. Field notes were captured to note any aspects that were not within the data collection tools. There were no repeat interviews. Data were collected until no new ideas emerged from the participants. We maximized the trustworthiness and rigor of the study by summarizing the key points that were discussed in an interview at the end of each interview as a form of member checking [ 11 ]. Credibility was established by increasing the visibility of the researcher’s involvement by sharing their number for further questions or comments, creating enough time to chat with the participants, which showed prolonged engagement with the participants. Transferability was attained by providing sufficient contextual information about the data collection sites to enable the reader to make such a transfer [ 11 ]. Furthermore, the presentation of quotes supporting the findings increased the confirmability of the findings [ 11 ]. Our results were reported according to COREQ guidelines (Supplementary File 2 ).

Data management and analysis

All the data were kept on a computer with a passcode known only to the investigator. The researcher transcribed the interviews verbatim in Chichewa and English. Audios in Chichewa were translated into English for coding. Data were managed by NVivo 12 software (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). A coding guide was developed by VM and ALN-M by independently coding three transcripts [ 12 ]. Codes were inductively realized from the data and deductively from the framework of the study [ 13 ]. Once the three transcripts were coded, VM and ALN-M discussed the codebook to develop a codebook that was used by VM to code the rest of the transcripts [Supplementary File 3 Code Book]. VM and ALN-M held multiple meetings to discuss the coding process, review the coded data, and appraise the new codes being added to the codebook. The researcher allocated preliminary codes to the data to describe the content following the codebook, which simplified and reduced the dataset into meaningful small chunks [ 14 , 15 ]. The data were analysed via a thematic approach, as suggested by Braun and Clarke [ 16 ]. The researchers familiarized themselves with the dataset by reading and rereading the transcripts when developing the codebook. Similar codes were grouped under the overarching themes of experiences in participating in a COVID-19 study, enabling enrolment in a COVID-19 study, and barriers to enrolment in a COVID-19 study. The data were reviewed under each theme to ensure congruence between the theme and the data under it and to further classify the data into subthemes. For example, the data under enablers were classified according to the type of enabler, such as financial reimbursements or access to medical services. The themes were examined for sufficiency and accurate data representation, and they were cross-referenced with the audio to ensure that the results were not misrepresented. To ensure that the themes and subthemes remained distinct from one another and did not overlap, the subthemes with limited data were blended with others that were comparable or related. To achieve clarity in the data presentation, the subthemes were discussed iteratively among the researchers.

Ethics considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the College of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (COMREC) (P. 10/21/3445) before any study procedures were performed. COMREC is based in Blantyre, Malawi, and is an institutional review board for Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, which is in Blantyre, Malawi. All participants provided verbal informed consent prior to study participation, and this was approved by the Institution Review Board. The consent form was read to them, and it provided the rationale and selection process of individuals for participation and stated that they were free to withdraw at any point, which was captured through the recording of the conversation. If some were illiterate, the presence of an impartial witness was not possible considering the nature of the consent process. All participants provided consent prior to study participation. The interviews were conducted in a private space so that there was no overhearing of the conversations. All participants were given an identification number, and no names were recorded on transcripts or used in final reports. The data were stored on a password-protected laptop belonging to the researcher.

The characteristics of the study participants are displayed in Table  1 . The majority of the participants were males. Six of the caregivers were married. Five caregivers were employed, three ran businesses, and two were students. Of the 10 decliners, eight were employed, whereas two were not employed.

Experiences in participating in a COVID-19 study

The experiences that the participants shared centered on knowledge of COVID-19, medical studies, the SCATHIM study, and the recruitment approach.

Knowledge of COVID-19, medical studies, and the SCATHIM study

When the participants were asked for their understanding of COVID-19, most participants linked COVID-19 to their definitions of a virus, elaborated on the transmission process, and described the signs and symptoms.

“It is a virus that attacks one’s respiratory system, and with it, various complications arise, such as loss of breath, sweating…no, rather fever, loss of appetite. It was a disease that emanated from China in 2019, and it is now a world pandemic. That is what I can say.” [Participant 1, Index Case, Chilomoni]. “Alright, COVID-19 is a respiratory disease—a virus rather. It attacks the respiratory system and, with it, results in signs and symptoms such as loss of breath, body pain, etc. It is easily transmitted from person to person, especially when social distance is not observed. It can be deadly if not well managed. I think that’s what I know about COVID-19.” [Participant 22, Caregiver, Chilomoni].

When asked about their understanding of medical studies, index cases and caregivers stated that medical studies entail research to discover something that needs further exploration in medicine.

“Well, a medical study is when scientists conduct research in a particular area to discover something. It’s what you are doing here.” [Participant 3, Index case, Chileka-Chatha]. “A medical study is an area of research where those in the medical field are researching to understand a particular area of interest to understand or find a solution for that particular gap. I hope I make sense.” [Participant 4, Caregiver, Namiwawa].

Index cases and caregivers reported having some knowledge of what the SCATHIM study was, and they related it to COVID-19. They stated that the study was interested in following those who had tested positive for COVID-19.

“Well, from what I remember, I know that this was a COVID-19-related study that was being conducted by the College of Medicine. They told us that they had taken our records from the DHO’s office and that they were interested in us participating, as we had tested positive for COVID-19. Therefore, the plan was that they would be coming to our homes to test and take samples of not just me but the entire household. I think they said their interest was the transmission aspect, if I am not mistaken. That’s what I can recall for now.” [Participant 7, Index case, Namiwawa].

On the other hand, other participants did not know about the SCATHIM study altogether; they stated that they were only seeking help and wanted support from hospital officials when they were approached to enroll.

“As a caregiver, I noted that the main reason was for them [the index case] to be assisted and recover; about the study, they didn’t know much or what its aim was.”[Participant 5, Caregiver, Chilomoni]. “I will be honest with you; I don’t recall what exactly they shared with me about the study. I just remember that it involved researching COVID-19. I just wanted to be helped.” [Participant 6, Index case, Chileka-Chatha].

Recruitment approaches

The index cases and caregivers were able to share how they heard about the SCATHIM study and how they were approached to be part of the study. The participants explained that they received phone calls that explained to them about the study and why they were being approached; others heard it from their family members who had been approached, and others were given consent forms that explained the study and the recruitment process itself.

“The recruitment approach was quite detailed. I think at that time, it was quite detailed. I remember she telling us that as part of the study, there will be several tests that will be occurring after some period.” [Participant 8, Index case, Chilomoni]. “How did I get to learn about it? Okay my wife at her workplace was referred to the College of Medicine for a test. Therefore, in the midst of her going there for a test after getting the results, I think that’s when she was approached and introduced to the whole study, and that’s how the whole household was recruited for the study.” [Participant 9, Caregiver, Chilomoni].

Enabling enrollment in a COVID-19 study

The factors that facilitated enrollment in the SCATHIM study included knowledge of COVID-19, medical services, access to medical services, financial reimbursements, and the need to contribute to the findings of the study.

Knowledge level of COVID-19

Research staff indicated that the level of knowledge of the pandemic was an enabler for those who mostly chose to participate. The participants who lived in urban areas, especially low-density urban areas, were more knowledgeable and exposed to the pandemic and rarely refused to participate.

“Therefore, most of the time, it was very hard, but those who were participating were mostly motivated due to their knowledge level on the subject. They were able to understand the motive behind what we wanted to achieve at the end of the day.” [Participant 33, Research Staff].

Medical services

The subthemes under this theme include a quest to understand the COVID-19 status of other household members and access to medical services.

A quest to determine the COVID-19 status of other household members

Some index cases indicated that their main interest in participating in the study was that they could know the status of their households as a measure of controlling transmission. They viewed this as a convenient way to access a test as opposed to accessing it at a health facility, where they may have had to queue for a long time. This approach also guaranteed frequent tests until a household was rated as an infection-free zone.

“Okay, aah, I wanted to know whether the people I am staying with within my household are safe because they told me that I was found with COVID-19. Therefore, I also wanted them to check because, it would have been an opportunity for me to get tested each time. Therefore, to me, I saw it as a good thing because they were following us home to monitor how we were doing. It was an easy thing for me. Because when you go to the hospital, you do stay on the line. Because at the hospital, getting t tested for COVID-19 wasn’t easy.” [Participant 5, Index Case, Chilomoni].

Access to medical care

Most of the research staff shared that index cases and caregivers attributed the opportunity to access medical services so easily as their main motivation to participate in the study. With respect to the information they were given regarding the study, they knew that they had the opportunity to call health workers if they were not feeling well.

“And then most of them chose to participate because they had a serious illness, so they thought once they participated in our study, that meant they were going to receive good treatment. That was the main motivation.” [Participant 31, Research Staff]. “They [index cases] thought their quality of health and life would easily improve because we were visiting them weekly. Therefore, some felt comfortable that our things would work; we wouldn’t be going to the hospital; people would be visiting us. Therefore, they were feeling good, and some were asking questions through their phones anytime they wanted. As a result, it was a good thing.” [Participant 35, Research Staff].

• Financial reimbursements

Some caregivers and index cases stated that receiving money while participating in the study was a motivation to stay in the study, considering the economic hardships that the pandemic had caused.

“Of course, there was another motivating factor, which was that at the end of the day, we will be paying you some amount, it was quite motivating to the other guys in the household.” [Participant 9, Caregiver, Chilomoni].

Need to contribute to the response to the pandemic

Very few participants shared the view that their participation was intended purely to help find answers to the study being carried out in response to the pandemic. They said that their participation in the study would help give the researchers answers for a greater reason in trying to understand the area of interest they want to know and that they would have helped in finding solutions for the greater good.

“Well, the pandemic is something that affects everyone. Therefore, I thought it was quite important that we take part as well so that whatever can be done to combat the pandemic should be done.” [Participant 8, Index Case, Chilomoni].

Barriers to enrolment in a COVID-19 study

The commonly cited barriers included minimal study publicity and stigma/discrimination. The other barriers were suboptimal financial reimbursements, invasion of privacy, and testing procedures.

Minimal study publicity

In most index cases, the research staff as well as the study decliners indicated that the study lacked adequate publicity, as they were not aware of the study before being approached by the research staff. They stated that publicity on various media platforms would have helped give them confidence in its legitimacy and existence beforehand, considering that the study occurred at a time when the occurrence of COVID-19 was marred with skepticism.

“When selling anything to an audience, visible publicity is key. I feel the study would have gotten the necessary attention it needed had they been communicating about it, noting that it was happening during a time when everyone was scared and facilities did not have adequate testing kits. So imagine the number of people who would appreciate having medical personnel follow and test you for free.” [Participant 26, Caregiver, Chileka-Chatha].

Research staff acknowledged that there was limited publicity about the study and attributed that as a factor in nonenrollment in the study.

“We didn’t do much publicity. There was no sensitizing community, moving around, or using fliers, radio, television, or any radio station. Maybe had it been that we did a lot of sensitization around the communities, people would have known that this was happening.”. [Participant 35, Research Staff]

Other participants suggested that community leaders, such as chiefs and pastors, could have been utilized through their churches to help engage, which would have helped the study gain substantial participants.

“We need to know. Use the media to publicize your study, churches, mosques, chiefs, or any other influential figures in our communities to engage us; it makes it easier to trust you when you call for us to enroll in studies.” [Participant 8, Index case, Chilomoni].

Stigma/discrimination

Discussions with the SCATHIM research staff indicated that potential participants declined to participate in the study because most people feared stigma from society. This was mainly a result of the limited knowledge of COVID-19 by those surrounding them. They said that participants feared that the moment those surrounding them saw the health workers in their protective wear and arriving in an ambulance to conduct study procedures, it would lead to more stigma.

“The major one is stigma; that one was a blow because most people saw that the moment we visit them, it’s an alarm to the community around, and people are refusing to go to their homes… People were afraid that since the car was supposed to visit them every week, it would be an alarm to their community, hence leading to stigma [participant 34, Research staff].

On their part, some decliners felt that they had inadequate time to process the possibility of joining a study, especially when they factored in the stigma associated with being infected with COVID-19. The participants also weighed the effects of their participation on their families.

“Well, basically, I wasn’t emotionally ready to be in a study. By that, I mean, I just didn’t feel the need to expose my family to the stigma that was coming in with the pandemic in those earlier days. Don’t get me wrong, the thought of getting first-hand support from a medical team was tempting, but I was uncertain how my family would also feel about it. I didn’t want it to feel as if they were imposed on it.” [Participant 25, Decliner, Chileka-Chatha].

Some participants who refused to participate in the study attributed it to the financial reimbursement that was proposed. They mostly stated that the money offered was small.

“The money that you said you would give us was so little, so aah, that’s when I just decided not to proceed.” [participant 28, Decliner, Chileka-Chatha]. “When I heard that we would be given some sort of money for the time spared to participate, I did get tempted to participate, but when I learned of the amount, I immediately lost interest. I was expecting thousands of Kwachas (laughs). Yeah, but they can do better.” [Participant 24, Decliner, Chilomoni].

Invasion of one’s privacy

Some participants chose not to take part in the study because they felt that their privacy was being invaded and feared the possibility of their health issues being publicized through social media for others to see.

“First, I just wasn’t interested; I believe issues to do with my health are private and should remain that way.” Pparticipant 30, Decliner, Namiwawa]. “It’s just my belief that my health is something that should remain a private matter, so I will be honest with you; I don’t think I would ever be part of a study.” [Participant 23, Decliner, Chileka-Chatha].

Researchers corroborated the participants’ views and reported that some participants who refused participation in the study were mainly concerned with their privacy and the likelihood that it would predispose them to stigma and discrimination related to COVID-19.

“Some people were denying to participate not because they are illiterate but because they would like to safeguard their privacy.” [Participant 32, Research Staff]. “They feared for their privacy. They also felt that there was going to be stigma from the neighbours but also that they had doubts about us (health care workers). They feared that we might take their information and tell other people. You know issues to do with social media. They were afraid that maybe they would wake up one morning and find their names written somewhere that they have COVID-19 or whatever.” [Participant 34, Research Staff].

Testing procedures

Index cases and caregivers, as well as research staff, expressed concern with the testing procedure. They reported that the process of inserting the swab into the nose resulted in discomfort. The feeling of discomfort in their nose that lasted for a considerable amount of time made them very uneasy with the procedure.

“For starters, I think they need to find friendlier modes of testing participants than the nasal swab. I will be honest with you, even as a grown man, I can never get used to that process; it is so uncomfortable. Therefore, imagine testing an entire household that consists of children as well for a certain period … I don’t think anyone would easily volunteer for that.” [Participant 1, Index case, Chilomoni]. “Testing for COVID-19 can be improved. The oral one is also painful, but the number one is nasal. The children mostly dreaded the test because it was painful. Yes, there should be another way.” [Participant 4, Caregiver, Namiwawa].

Healthcare workers supported the caregivers and index case experiences with the testing by sharing their experience in conducting the tests. They stated that a lot of fear came from the thought that the procedure would be done repeatedly throughout the study.

“Others would say the procedure is so painful, so with our explanation that the samples will be collected twice or three times, we faced a lot of fear from them.” [Participant 31, Research staff].

Our study revealed that the index cases and caregivers’ perceptions of participating in a COVID-19 study demonstrated an adequate understanding of what COVID-19 is and what medical studies are, as well as an understanding of the recruitment procedure. The enablers of participation included access to medical services, the level of COVID-19 knowledge, financial reimbursements, and advances in the science of COVID-19. The barriers to participation included suboptimal financial reimbursements, invasion of privacy, and testing procedures, and the commonly cited barriers were discrimination and stigma and minimal study publicity.

Perceptions of medical studies and recruitment approaches

The findings from the study demonstrate that the participants had an overall understanding of what COVID-19 was, as well as what medical studies entail. A good level of knowledge about a disease is a key factor in causing individuals to become infected and helps them understand their study needs when they are approached [ 17 ]. In our study, most of the index cases and caregivers understood what COVID-19 was, which accelerated their willingness to participate in the study. This heightened level of understanding could be explained by the higher literacy level of the participants who were recruited for this study.

Participation in research must be voluntary [ 18 ] and in a manner that offers participants adequate time and the ability to freely consider whether they wish to take part. Undue pressure because of the timing of the request, who makes the request, the method of request, or the offering of undue inducements should be avoided [ 18 ]. Our findings show that the index cases and caregivers were properly recruited by the SCATHIM research staff, who gave them adequate information and presented them with consent forms. An earlier European study revealed that a well-conversed research team is key to the recruitment team, as it will be able to share the right information with the participants [ 19 ]. This means that the researchers were well trained on recruitment procedures and provided adequate information to potential participants before recruitment.

Enablers of participation in a COVID-19 study

Our findings revealed that caregivers indicated that their patients (index cases) chose to participate largely because they wanted to access better treatment. Similarly, another study in Brazil reported that many study participants enroll in clinical studies because they believe that they will have improved access to health care and a better quality of care [ 20 ]. The participants believe that they will be better able to check their health and avoid the time that they would spend in the public health sector. Moreover, the ability to call a study physician at any time is attractive to most patients [ 20 ], which was also a shared feeling among our respondents. The need for easy access to medical services could have been largely influenced by the increase in cases and deaths due to COVID-19 at the time the study of mothers was conducted. The COVID-19 variant beta wave identified in South Africa was attributed to the second wave in Malawi, which was also the time when the SCATHIM study was being conducted. The increase in the number of cases during this wave resulted in hospitals being overwhelmed, further resulting in substandard services offered to COVID-19 patients [ 21 ]. This has been reported before in an earlier Malawian study where participants reiterated that their main motivator to participate in a study was the guarantee of better medical treatment [ 9 ]. The respondents in a Malawian study characterized normal health care in health centres as inadequate with limited diagnostic capabilities, which compromises the treatment one receives, which is further compromised by the lack of supplies such as medications [ 9 ]. Hence, studies that are perceived to provide additional care to participants in an infectious disease setting are more likely to attract easy participation.

Our findings showed that the quest to understand the COVID-19 status of other household members as a way of controlling transmission among their households was another factor that motivated their enrolment in the SCATHIM study. This finding is consistent with the results of a multicentre study conducted in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, which revealed that approximately 50% of the study participants had positive attitudes towards participation in COVID-19 trials, and the main factor that influenced public willingness was the desire to protect family members from COVID-19, accelerating the return of life to normal [ 22 ]. This finding further agrees with the TRA’s element of belief, which states that a person’s attitude towards performing some behavior is a function of the beliefs that one holds regarding the behavior [ 23 ]. In this case, the participants believed that their choice to participate in the study was the solution to protecting their families.

Our study revealed that most participants had a good understanding of COVID-19 and medical studies, which was a factor in their willingness to participate and could also be further based on the participants’ demographics. Similarly, a study in India focused on the awareness and understanding of the COVID-19 virus among rural and urban populations.

According to an Indian study, rural residents require considerably more information and awareness about COVID-19 for infection prevention and control than do urban residents. Rural residents are less aware of the virus than urban residents [ 24 ]. It may be that those in urban areas are likely to be educated and therefore knowledgeable and concerned about their health and well-being through access to more information sources and become more engaged in life events that could impact them [ 24 ], such as COVID-19. The above finding is also consistent with the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which assumes that human beings are rational and make systematic use of the information available to them [ 25 ]. The belief that people hold about a behavior follows reasonably well from the information and knowledge that people possess about the behavior under consideration. These beliefs originate from a variety of sources, such as personal experience, formal education, radio, newspapers, TV, the internet, and other media, as well as interactions with family [ 25 ].

Financial incentives, as reported in our study, have been suggested as catalysts to increase the voluntary participation and testing of individuals and can play a vital role in limiting the rapid spread of the infection at a lower cost if monetary rewards are given [ 5 ]. In Ghana, as in Malawi, the IRBs have set the allowable amount for a token or incentive as a way of minimizing coercion because of what participants stand to gain if they participate in the study [ 26 , 27 ]. Participants in a Vietnamese study indicated that they did not join studies merely for financial reimbursements alone but had other interests that were different from what the healthcare workers stated [ 28 ]. Financial reimbursements have the risk of being coercive, especially in areas of low socioeconomic status [ 28 ]. Furthermore, a study conducted among the African-American community cautioned that individuals are less willing or able to consider the risks of participation when monetary reimbursement is involved and described payment for research participation as just one part of the “informal economy” in poor communities [ 29 ]. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the amount that the main study provided as reimbursement, which was 2 USD, was not high enough to coerce someone to join the study, and that is why others were able to opt out solely of this financial incentive basis if the other factors, in their opinion, were not strong enough to persuade them to join the study.

Another reason given by others for their decision to take part in the study was their desire to further the body of knowledge regarding the management of COVID-19. In a similar vein, an investigation into the reasons for community study participation found that research participants valued studies that went beyond the specific study environment by helping advance basic science by understanding novel concepts [ 30 ]. According to the study, one of the things that drives people to participate in research is the desire to provide knowledge that would benefit medicine or the medical field [ 30 ]. Hence, researchers could utilize this approach by ensuring that the informed consent form and process highlight how participation in the study contributes to understanding the disease and how the results will be used.

Barriers to participation in a COVID-19 study

The respondents in our study emphasized a lack of adequate publicity as a barrier to adequate participant recruitment. The SCATHIM study did not adequately sensitize the communities to the study because of the COVID-19 preventive measures that were reinforced at the time. The measures eliminated community gatherings where information about an upcoming event could have been shared. Instead, potential participants learned about the study when they presented at a health facility for a COVID-19 test. Although our sample was adequate, the reluctance of the others who were approached to join the study could be due to a lack of awareness of the study. Public awareness and engagement are among the main prerequisites of successful research [ 31 ]. The implementation of these principles requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders, including the public [ 31 ]. The literature suggests that effective outreach to potential research participants, especially those who are difficult to access, requires a partnership approach with community-based influencers, media, and other relevant stakeholders [ 32 ]. Engaging community members in research activities is crucial for meeting recruitment and enrollment goals and resolving key barriers [ 33 ]. Using community leaders as champions and recruiters is a successful recruitment approach, as they create trust among participants [ 33 ]. Additionally, a study on chemical exposure in pregnant women revealed that online advertising, radio, TV, posters, and flyers at hospitals and clinics were the most successful recruitment strategies [ 34 ]. Our findings and those of a previous study on public awareness and perceptions of clinical research in India indicate that creating public awareness changes attitudes towards, enrolment in, and the benefits of participation [ 35 ]. There is a need to increase public awareness and understanding of research to ensure its success while being compliant with all ethical considerations. In the main study, COVID-19 was associated with stigma and community reproduction. Hence, to balance privacy and ensure that many people hear about the study, the approach of contacting people directly was employed.

Our study revealed that some people were scared of being stigmatized by their communities if their sickness was disclosed to the public for some reason. The fear of being stigmatized by being in the study area may lead to being labeled as having spread COVID-19. Research has shown that stigmatized people are often associated with nondisclosure of their disease status [ 36 ], avoidance of medical care, and nonadherence to treatment to avoid discrimination [ 37 ]. This may severely disrupt efforts to manage any infectious disease outbreak [ 37 , 38 ]. Similar findings regarding the impact of disease-related stigma on research efforts have been reported in other research fields, including HIV and mental health research. One study on HIV conducted in South Africa revealed that 80% of the 400 patients with HIV who participated in the study did not feel comfortable disclosing their status due to fear of stigma [ 39 ]. While studies related to social stigma among individuals with COVID-19 are limited, the SCATHIM decliners’ experience could be similar to that of persons affected by other infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis [ 40 ], where a large proportion of eligible patients refused to participate in a study because of high levels of stigma from society [ 40 ]. These findings are consistent with the TRA’s tenet on subjective norms as an influencer of one’s intent toward a behavior. Subjective norms involve individuals’ beliefs about the extent to which other people surrounding them think they should or should not perform behaviours [ 25 ]. Subjective norms could explain the high refusal rates experienced during recruitment in the SCATHIM study because most of the decliners made their decisions on the basis of what others would or said. However, for those who choose to participate in the SCATHIM study, the theory also points out that sometimes, even if others prescribe a certain behavior, one may still not be motivated to comply. The concerns raised by regulatory bodies in South Africa are similarly illustrated by our findings, which indicate that greater incentive value may have led to increased participation in the study [ 41 ]. For example, the South African Medical Council advocated the introduction of flat rates that compensate participants only for their time, inconvenience, and expenses [ 41 ]. The assertion by the medical council was not favourably received by the community members, as it translated into reduced reimbursements [ 41 ]. Additionally, in a study in Kenya where reimbursement amounts were discussed, zero payments were deemed unfair, and high reimbursements evoked suspicion among the prospective participants [ 42 ]. However, participants in a study conducted in America viewed substantial financial incentives as a benefit and did not perceive them as coercive or suspicious but rather as compensation for their time [ 25 ]. The variation in perceptions between participants in our study and those from the USA could be secondary to the different socioeconomic statuses of the different settings, with those in the USA being less needy. The importance of considering substantial financial incentives as a strategy to retain participants in longitudinal studies was similarly acknowledged by the participants in our study, showing that participants will be motivated to enroll in a study when an incentive is brought into the picture. Building trusting relationships between researchers and participants is essential in research. This can therefore contribute to the authenticity of the study [ 37 ]. Although this was done in the SCATHIM study by presenting the participants with consent forms highlighting the privacy obligations of the researchers on whatever was to be shared with research staff, the study findings still indicated that the decliners felt that their health issues were not for others to know, leading to their denial of participation. In relation to this finding, a study on perspectives regarding privacy in clinical research revealed that when potential research participants are directly contacted by the research team after having accessed their medical records to determine which patients meet study criteria, the researchers’ access to these records violates informational privacy, hence leading to prospective participants not being interested in participating in their research [ 43 ]. Furthermore, findings from a clinical study on barriers to the recruitment of HIV-infected people further revealed that the need for privacy in one’s status was a more potent barrier to recruitment than having others learn of other habits, such as substance use disorders. Prospective study participants were concerned about their status being exposed and family and community members discovering their HIV status because they had participated in the clinical trials [ 44 ]. This further means that low enrollment rates in studies can be attributed to the fear of personal information being exposed to a wider audience, as indicated by the findings.

The fear of an invasion of privacy can be linked to attitude, another element of TRA, as a reason not to participate. According to the theory, attitude formation is the process by which a large set of specific beliefs, which have been associated with behavior over time, informs an overall sense of favourableness toward the behavior [ 25 ]. Attitude is a multiplicative combination of behavioral beliefs, which are perceptions of the likelihood that performing a particular behavior will have certain consequences [ 25 ]. In this case, the idea that participating in the SCATHIM study would lead to their health status being known by others led to the belief that participation would breach their privacy.

The COVID-19 nasal swab testing procedure used in the study was a barrier to participation. Similarly, participants in a study carried out to identify perceived barriers to COVID-19 testing in the USA described their perceptions that the nasopharyngeal swab method was too painful, echoing what has been reported by the media [ 45 ]. Even those who had not been tested were deterred from doing so because of their fear of the pain associated with the nasopharyngeal swab. The study further revealed that among all sources of samples tested, those obtained from the lower respiratory tract and nasopharyngeal area are viewed to have the highest sensitivity compared with saliva, sputum, blood, and feces [ 45 ].

Our theoretical framework, however, indicates that behavioral intention is the most immediate determinant of behavior. It is defined as people’s readiness to perform a behavior [ 25 ]. This intention comes from the belief that performing the behaviour will lead to a specific outcome. This can also be attributed to the fact that the decision by the index cases and caregivers to participate was determined by one’s intention to want to participate, disregarding the discomfort that accompanies the process.

Strengths and limitations

This study collected data from SCATHIM research staff through in-depth interviews, which provided a better understanding of the subject from key stakeholders who interacted with index cases, caregivers, and decliners, as well as sharing their own experiences in the study, which was deemed a strength of the study. However, the study faced limitations due to misconceptions about the study being coercive, particularly among SCATHIM decliners who had previously declined to participate in the mother study. Furthermore, telephone interviews did not allow for observations of the participants’ reactions, which could have limited the amount of nonexpressed information captured as well as the personal interaction that is beneficial in face-to-face interviews. Again, by only including participants could be reached via telephone introduced a bias in that we left out those who we could not contact via telephone and these may have had other insights into the topic. We conducted the study after some time had passed since the mother study was performed, which could have resulted in recall bias among the participants in this study. However, we probed more to ensure that the recollection was detailed. Future studies should aim at including participants that had no telephone access to ensure a representative sample. In countries like Malawi where telephonic interviews are not common among community members, there is a need on establishing how this approach can be made effective through dialogues between researchers and study participants.

The participants in the SCATHIM study had sufficient knowledge and understanding of COVID-19 and medical studies and were familiar with the recruitment process. Decisions to participate in a study are influenced by perceived risks and benefits, which may not always be scientifically based. Publicity through various means is necessary to achieve optimal recruitment rates and dispel rumours surrounding new studies. Studies on infectious diseases should address stigma and discrimination to promote participation and ensure participant safety.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission dynamics and household impact in Malawi

Theory of Reasoned Action

Research Ethics Committee of the College of Medicine

Coronavirus disease

Covid-19 Corona Virus Pandemic. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Mwapasa V. P.05/20/3046 - SARS–CoV–2 Infection, Transmission Dynamics and Household Impact in Malawi (SCATHIM) version 1.1 dated 12/05/20.

Dennis BK. Understanding Participant Experiences: Reflections of a Novice Research Participant. Int J Qual Methods [Internet]. 2014;13(1):395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300121

Divala TH, Mungwira RG, Laufer MK. Moving targets: the challenges of studying infectious diseases among pregnant women in resource limited settings. Vaccine. 2015;33(47):6401–5.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lee C, Kwak S, Kim J, Controlling. COVID-19 Outbreaks with Financial Incentives. 2021;(July 2020):1–13.

Schmidt T, Cloete A, Davids A, Makola L, Zondi N, Jantjies M. Myths, misconceptions, othering and stigmatizing responses to Covid-19 in South Africa: A rapid qualitative assessment. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020;15(12):e0244420. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244420

Lee GE, Ow M, Lie D, Dent R. Barriers and facilitators for clinical trial participation among diverse Asian patients with breast cancer: A qualitative study. BMC Womens Health [Internet]. 2016;16(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-016-0319-1

de Zwart O. Exploring Risk Perceptions of Emerging Infectious Diseases [Internet]. Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam; 2009. https://hdl.handle.net/1765/14759

Mfutso-bengo J, Ndebele P, Jumbe V, Mkunthi M, Masiye F, Molyneux S, et al. Why do individuals agree to enrol in clinical trials? Qualitative Study Health Res Participation in. 2008;20(June):37–41.

Google Scholar  

National Statistical Office, MALAWI POPULATION AND HOUSING CENSUS. REPORT-2018 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Main Report. 2019;(May). https://www.nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/demography/census_2018/2018%20Malawi%20Population%20and%20Housing%20Census%20Main%20Report.pdf .

Stahl N, King J. Expanding Approaches for Research: Understanding and Using Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. 2020;44:26–8.

Roberts K, Dowell A, Nie J-B. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2019;19(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y

Burney SMA, Saleem H. Inductive and Deductive Research Approach. 2008.

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are Enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

Article   Google Scholar  

Linneberg MS, Korsgaard S. Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice Coding qualitative data: a synthesis to guide the novice Mai Skjøtt Linneberg Department of Management, Aarhus University Steffen Korsgaard Department of Entrepreneurship and Relationship Manageme. 2019;(May).

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

Liu H, Li M, Jin M, Jing F, Wang H, Chen K. Public awareness of three major infectious diseases in rural Zhejiang province, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis [Internet]. 2013;13(1):192. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-13-192

Manohar N, MacMillan F, Steiner Z, Arora G. Recruitment of research participants. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer Singapore; 2018. pp. 1–28.

Newington L, Metcalfe A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:10.

Nappo SA, Iafrate GB, Sanchez ZM. Motives for participating in a clinical research trial: a pilot study in Brazil. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2013;13(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-19

Sono-Setati ME, Mphekgwana PM, Mabila LN, Mbombi MO, Muthelo L, Matlala SF, Tshitangano TG, Ramalivhana NJ. Health system-and patient-related factors associated with COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients in limpopo province of South Africa’s public hospitals. Healthcare [Internet]. 2022;10(7). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/7/1338

Alqahtani A, Almazrou S, Alalweet R, Almalki Z, Alqahtani B, Al-Ghamdi S. Impact of COVID-19 on Public Knowledge and attitudes toward participating in clinical trials in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:3405–13.

Hale JL, Householder BJ, Greene KL. The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice [Internet]. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2002. https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_persuasion

Dhayanithi J, Ganesh SB, Mp B. Perception and awareness of COVID-19 among Urban and Rural Population – A Survey. Int J Curr Res Rev. 2020;12:135–42.

Yzer M. Perceived behavioral control in reasoned action theory: a dual-aspect interpretation. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2012;640:101–17.

Appiah R. Community-based participatory research in rural African contexts: Ethico-cultural considerations and lessons from Ghana. Public Health Rev. 2020;41:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00145-2 .

Gordon SB, Chinula L, Chilima B, Mwapasa V, Dadabhai S, Mlombe Y. Malawi Research Ethics Workshop 2018 participants. A Malawi guideline for research study participant remuneration. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:141. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14668.2 . PMID: 30662959; PMCID: PMC6329041.

Van Nuil JI, Nguyen TTT, Le Nguyen TN, et al. Researcher and study participants’ perspectives of consent in clinical studies in four referral hospitals in Vietnam. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0445-z .

Slomka J, McCurdy S, Ratliff EA, Timpson S, Williams ML. Perceptions of financial payment for research participation among African-American drug users in HIV studies. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1403–9.

Carrera JS, Brown P, Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R. Research altruism as motivation for participation in community-centered environmental health research. Soc Sci Med. 2018;196:175–81.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mezinska S, Kaleja J, Mileiko I, Santare D, Rovite V, Tzivian L. Public awareness of and attitudes towards research biobanks in Latvia. BMC Med Ethics [Internet]. 2020;21(1):65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00506-1

Wentzell K, Walker HR, Hughes AS, Vessey JA. Engaging Social Media influencers to Recruit Hard-to-Reach populations. Nurs Res. 2021;70(6):455–61.

Parikh P, Simon EP, Fei K, Looker H, Goytia C, Horowitz CR. The results of a pilot diabetes prevention intervention in East Harlem, New York City: Project HEED. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(SupplSuppl 1):S232–9.

Webster GM, Teschke K, Janssen PA. Recruitment of healthy first-trimester pregnant women: lessons from the chemicals, Health & pregnancy study (CHirP). Matern Child Health J. 2012;16(2):430–8.

Joshi VD, Oka GA, Kulkarni AA, Bivalkar VV. Public awareness and perception of clinical trials: quantitative study in Pune. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(3):169–74.

Chew C-C, Lim X-J, Chang C-T, Rajan P, Nasir N, Low W-Y. Experiences of social stigma among patients tested positive for COVID-19 and their family members: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2021;21(1):1623. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11679-8

Czarny MJ, Kass NE, Flexner C, Carson KA, Myers RK, Fuchs EJ. Payment to healthy volunteers in clinical research: the research subject’s perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(3):286–93.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Greenwood GL, Wilson A, Bansal GP, Barnhart C, Barr E, Berzon R et al. HIV-Related Stigma Research as a Priority at the National Institutes of Health. AIDS Behav [Internet]. 2022;26(1):5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03260-6

Madiba S, Ralebona E, Lowane M. Perceived Stigma as a contextual barrier to early uptake of HIV Testing, treatment initiation, and Disclosure; the case of patients admitted with AIDS-Related illness in a Rural Hospital in South Africa. Volume 9. Healthc; 2021. (Basel, Switzerland). 8.

Kipp AM, Pungrassami P, Stewart PW, Chongsuvivatwong V, Strauss RP, Van Rie A. Study of tuberculosis and AIDS stigma as barriers to tuberculosis treatment adherence using validated stigma scales. Int J Tuberc lung Dis Off J Int Union against Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011;15(11):1540–5, i.

Koen J, Slack C, Barsdorf N, Essack Z. Payment of trial participants can be ethically sound: moving past a flat rate. S Afr Med J. 2008;98(12):926–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Njue M, Njuguna P, Kapulu MC, Sanga G, Bejon P, Marsh V, et al. Ethical considerations in Controlled Human Malaria infection studies in low resource settings: experiences and perceptions of study participants in a malaria challenge study in Kenya. Wellcome open Res. 2018;3:39.

Adarmouch L, Felaefel M, Wachbroit R, Silverman H. Perspectives regarding privacy in clinical research among research professionals from the Arab region: an exploratory qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics [Internet]. 2020;21(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0456-9

Hoffman KA, Baker R, Kunkel LE, Waddell EN, Lum PJ, McCarty D et al. Barriers and facilitators to recruitment and enrollment of HIV-infected individuals with opioid use disorder in a clinical trial. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2019;19(1):862. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4721-x

McElfish PA, Purvis R, James LP, Willis DE, Andersen JA. Perceived Barriers to COVID-19 Testing. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(5). https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/5/2278

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants who participated in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under the Global Effort on COVID-19 (GECO) Health Research grant to Prof. Victor Mwapasa. Grant number: MR/V02860X/1. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, School of Global and Public Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi

Vanessa Mdala & Victor Mwapasa

Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi

Deborah Nyirenda & Alinane Linda Nyondo-Mipando

Department of Health Systems and Policy, School of Global and Public Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi

Samuel Mpinganjira & Alinane Linda Nyondo-Mipando

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

VM conceptualized, developed, conducted the study, analyzed the data and drafted the initial manuscript. DB and VM offered a critical review of the article. SM offered a critical review of the article and the provision of necessary data from the SCATHIM study. ALNM provision of step-by-step guidance throughout the whole research study. ALNM, SM, DB, VM all gave a final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alinane Linda Nyondo-Mipando .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was obtained from the College of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (COMREC)-P. 10/21/3445 before any study procedures were performed. COMREC is based in Blantyre, Malawi, and is an institutional review board for Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, which is in Blantyre, Malawi. All participants provided informed verbal consent prior to study participation, and this was approved by COMREC, the Institution Review Board that assessed the study. The consent form was read to them, and it provided the rationale and selection process of individuals for participation and stated that they were free to withdraw at any point, which was captured through the recording of the conversation. If there were some who were illiterate, the presence of an impartial witness was not possible considering the nature of the consent process. All participants provided consent prior to study participation. The interviews were conducted in a private space so that there was no overhearing of the conversations. All participants were given an identification number, and no names were recorded on transcripts or used in final reports. The data were stored on a password-protected laptop belonging to the researcher.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mdala, V., Nyirenda, D., Mpinganjira, S. et al. “When selling anything to an audience, visible publicity is key:” experiences, barriers, and enablers to participate in a COVID-19 study in Malawi. BMC Med Res Methodol 24 , 207 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02329-9

Download citation

Received : 06 November 2023

Accepted : 05 September 2024

Published : 16 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02329-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Study participation
• Research publicity
• Stigma and discrimination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Cheminformatic identification of tyrosyl-dna phosphodiesterase 1 (tdp1) inhibitors: a comparative study of smiles-based supervised machine learning models.

Share and Cite

Lai, C.H.-L.; Kwok, A.P.K.; Wong, K.-C. Cheminformatic Identification of Tyrosyl-DNA Phosphodiesterase 1 (Tdp1) Inhibitors: A Comparative Study of SMILES-Based Supervised Machine Learning Models. J. Pers. Med. 2024 , 14 , 981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14090981

Lai CH-L, Kwok APK, Wong K-C. Cheminformatic Identification of Tyrosyl-DNA Phosphodiesterase 1 (Tdp1) Inhibitors: A Comparative Study of SMILES-Based Supervised Machine Learning Models. Journal of Personalized Medicine . 2024; 14(9):981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14090981

Lai, Conan Hong-Lun, Alex Pak Ki Kwok, and Kwong-Cheong Wong. 2024. "Cheminformatic Identification of Tyrosyl-DNA Phosphodiesterase 1 (Tdp1) Inhibitors: A Comparative Study of SMILES-Based Supervised Machine Learning Models" Journal of Personalized Medicine 14, no. 9: 981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14090981

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 4691 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals