what does for research purposes only mean

Community Blog

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

What is Research? – Purpose of Research

• By DiscoverPhDs
• September 10, 2020

The purpose of research is to enhance society by advancing knowledge through the development of scientific theories, concepts and ideas. A research purpose is met through forming hypotheses, collecting data, analysing results, forming conclusions, implementing findings into real-life applications and forming new research questions.

What is Research

Simply put, research is the process of discovering new knowledge. This knowledge can be either the development of new concepts or the advancement of existing knowledge and theories, leading to a new understanding that was not previously known.

As a more formal definition of research, the following has been extracted from the Code of Federal Regulations :

While research can be carried out by anyone and in any field, most research is usually done to broaden knowledge in the physical, biological, and social worlds. This can range from learning why certain materials behave the way they do, to asking why certain people are more resilient than others when faced with the same challenges.

The use of ‘systematic investigation’ in the formal definition represents how research is normally conducted – a hypothesis is formed, appropriate research methods are designed, data is collected and analysed, and research results are summarised into one or more ‘research conclusions’. These research conclusions are then shared with the rest of the scientific community to add to the existing knowledge and serve as evidence to form additional questions that can be investigated. It is this cyclical process that enables scientific research to make continuous progress over the years; the true purpose of research.

What is the Purpose of Research

From weather forecasts to the discovery of antibiotics, researchers are constantly trying to find new ways to understand the world and how things work – with the ultimate goal of improving our lives.

The purpose of research is therefore to find out what is known, what is not and what we can develop further. In this way, scientists can develop new theories, ideas and products that shape our society and our everyday lives.

Although research can take many forms, there are three main purposes of research:

• Exploratory: Exploratory research is the first research to be conducted around a problem that has not yet been clearly defined. Exploration research therefore aims to gain a better understanding of the exact nature of the problem and not to provide a conclusive answer to the problem itself. This enables us to conduct more in-depth research later on.
• Descriptive: Descriptive research expands knowledge of a research problem or phenomenon by describing it according to its characteristics and population. Descriptive research focuses on the ‘how’ and ‘what’, but not on the ‘why’.
• Explanatory: Explanatory research, also referred to as casual research, is conducted to determine how variables interact, i.e. to identify cause-and-effect relationships. Explanatory research deals with the ‘why’ of research questions and is therefore often based on experiments.

Characteristics of Research

There are 8 core characteristics that all research projects should have. These are:

• Empirical  – based on proven scientific methods derived from real-life observations and experiments.
• Logical  – follows sequential procedures based on valid principles.
• Cyclic  – research begins with a question and ends with a question, i.e. research should lead to a new line of questioning.
• Controlled  – vigorous measures put into place to keep all variables constant, except those under investigation.
• Hypothesis-based  – the research design generates data that sufficiently meets the research objectives and can prove or disprove the hypothesis. It makes the research study repeatable and gives credibility to the results.
• Analytical  – data is generated, recorded and analysed using proven techniques to ensure high accuracy and repeatability while minimising potential errors and anomalies.
• Objective  – sound judgement is used by the researcher to ensure that the research findings are valid.
• Statistical treatment  – statistical treatment is used to transform the available data into something more meaningful from which knowledge can be gained.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Types of Research

Research can be divided into two main types: basic research (also known as pure research) and applied research.

Basic Research

Basic research, also known as pure research, is an original investigation into the reasons behind a process, phenomenon or particular event. It focuses on generating knowledge around existing basic principles.

Basic research is generally considered ‘non-commercial research’ because it does not focus on solving practical problems, and has no immediate benefit or ways it can be applied.

While basic research may not have direct applications, it usually provides new insights that can later be used in applied research.

Applied Research

Applied research investigates well-known theories and principles in order to enhance knowledge around a practical aim. Because of this, applied research focuses on solving real-life problems by deriving knowledge which has an immediate application.

Methods of Research

Research methods for data collection fall into one of two categories: inductive methods or deductive methods.

Inductive research methods focus on the analysis of an observation and are usually associated with qualitative research. Deductive research methods focus on the verification of an observation and are typically associated with quantitative research.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a method that enables non-numerical data collection through open-ended methods such as interviews, case studies and focus groups .

It enables researchers to collect data on personal experiences, feelings or behaviours, as well as the reasons behind them. Because of this, qualitative research is often used in fields such as social science, psychology and philosophy and other areas where it is useful to know the connection between what has occurred and why it has occurred.

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research is a method that collects and analyses numerical data through statistical analysis.

It allows us to quantify variables, uncover relationships, and make generalisations across a larger population. As a result, quantitative research is often used in the natural and physical sciences such as engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, finance, and medical research, etc.

What does Research Involve?

Research often follows a systematic approach known as a Scientific Method, which is carried out using an hourglass model.

A research project first starts with a problem statement, or rather, the research purpose for engaging in the study. This can take the form of the ‘ scope of the study ’ or ‘ aims and objectives ’ of your research topic.

Subsequently, a literature review is carried out and a hypothesis is formed. The researcher then creates a research methodology and collects the data.

The data is then analysed using various statistical methods and the null hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.

In both cases, the study and its conclusion are officially written up as a report or research paper, and the researcher may also recommend lines of further questioning. The report or research paper is then shared with the wider research community, and the cycle begins all over again.

Although these steps outline the overall research process, keep in mind that research projects are highly dynamic and are therefore considered an iterative process with continued refinements and not a series of fixed stages.

How should you spend your first week as a PhD student? Here’s are 7 steps to help you get started on your journey.

Being a new graduate teaching assistant can be a scary but rewarding undertaking – our 7 tips will help make your teaching journey as smooth as possible.

Academic conferences are expensive and it can be tough finding the funds to go; this naturally leads to the question of are academic conferences worth it?

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

Browse PhDs Now

A concept paper is a short document written by a researcher before starting their research project, explaining what the study is about, why it is needed and the methods that will be used.

Priya’s a 1st year PhD student University College Dublin. Her project involves investigating a novel seaweed-ensiling process as an alternative to drying to preserve seaweeds nutritional and monetary value.

Guy is in the 3rd and final year of his PhD in Immunology and Microbiology at The University of Newcastle, Australia. His research primarily focuses on investigating roles of our immune system outside of the typical pathogen surveillance.

Join Thousands of Students

• Privacy Policy

Home » Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Table of Contents

Purpose of Research

Definition:

The purpose of research is to systematically investigate and gather information on a particular topic or issue, with the aim of answering questions, solving problems, or advancing knowledge.

The purpose of research can vary depending on the field of study, the research question, and the intended audience. In general, research can be used to:

• Generate new knowledge and theories
• Test existing theories or hypotheses
• Identify trends or patterns
• Gather information for decision-making
• Evaluate the effectiveness of programs, policies, or interventions
• Develop new technologies or products
• Identify new opportunities or areas for further study.

Objectives of Research

The objectives of research may vary depending on the field of study and the specific research question being investigated. However, some common objectives of research include:

• To explore and describe a phenomenon: Research can be conducted to describe and understand a phenomenon or situation in greater detail.
• To test a hypothesis or theory : Research can be used to test a specific hypothesis or theory by collecting and analyzing data.
• To identify patterns or trends: Research can be conducted to identify patterns or trends in data, which can provide insights into the behavior of a system or population.
• To evaluate a program or intervention: Research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a program or intervention, such as a new drug or educational intervention.
• To develop new knowledge or technology : Research can be conducted to develop new knowledge or technologies that can be applied to solve practical problems.
• To inform policy decisions: Research can provide evidence to inform policy decisions and improve public policy.
• To improve existing knowledge: Research can be conducted to improve existing knowledge and fill gaps in the current understanding of a topic.

Applications of Research

Research has a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

• Medicine : Research is critical in developing new treatments and drugs for diseases. Researchers conduct clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of new medications and therapies. They also study the underlying causes of diseases to find new ways to prevent or treat them.
• Technology : Research is crucial in developing new technologies and improving existing ones. Researchers work to develop new software, hardware, and other technological innovations that can be used in various industries such as healthcare, manufacturing, and telecommunications.
• Education : Research is essential in the field of education to develop new teaching methods and strategies. Researchers conduct studies to determine the effectiveness of various educational approaches and to identify factors that influence student learning.
• Business : Research is critical in helping businesses make informed decisions. Market research can help businesses understand their target audience and identify trends in the market. Research can also help businesses improve their products and services.
• Environmental Science : Research is crucial in the field of environmental science to understand the impact of human activities on the environment. Researchers conduct studies to identify ways to reduce pollution, protect natural resources, and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Goal of Research

The ultimate goal of research is to advance our understanding of the world and to contribute to the development of new theories, ideas, and technologies that can be used to improve our lives. Some more common Goals are follows:

• Explore and discover new knowledge : Research can help uncover new information and insights that were previously unknown.
• Test hypotheses and theories : Research can be used to test and validate theories and hypotheses, allowing researchers to refine and develop their ideas.
• Solve practical problems: Research can be used to identify solutions to real-world problems and to inform policy and decision-making.
• Improve understanding : Research can help improve our understanding of complex phenomena and systems, such as the human body, the natural world, and social systems.
• Develop new technologies and innovations : Research can lead to the development of new technologies, products, and innovations that can improve our lives and society.
• Contribute to the development of academic fields : Research can help advance academic fields by expanding our knowledge and understanding of important topics and areas of inquiry.

Importance of Research

The importance of research lies in its ability to generate new knowledge and insights, to test existing theories and ideas, and to solve practical problems.

Some of the key reasons why research is important are:

• Advancing knowledge: Research is essential for advancing knowledge and understanding in various fields. It enables us to explore and discover new concepts, ideas, and phenomena that can contribute to scientific and technological progress.
• Solving problems : Research can help identify and solve practical problems and challenges in various domains, such as health care, agriculture, engineering, and social policy.
• Innovation : Research is a critical driver of innovation, as it enables the development of new products, services, and technologies that can improve people’s lives and contribute to economic growth.
• Evidence-based decision-making : Research provides evidence and data that can inform decision-making in various fields, such as policy-making, business strategy, and healthcare.
• Personal and professional development : Engaging in research can also contribute to personal and professional development, as it requires critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills.

When to use Research

Research should be used in situations where there is a need to gather new information, test existing theories, or solve problems. Some common scenarios where research is often used include:

• Scientific inquiry : Research is essential for advancing scientific knowledge and understanding, and for exploring new concepts, theories, and phenomena.
• Business and market analysis: Research is critical for businesses to gather data and insights about the market, customer preferences, and competition, to inform decision-making and strategy development.
• Social policy and public administration: Research is often used in social policy and public administration to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies, and to identify areas where improvements are needed.
• Healthcare: Research is essential in healthcare to develop new treatments, improve existing ones, and to understand the causes and mechanisms of diseases.
• Education : Research is critical in education to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods and programs, and to develop new approaches to learning.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Appendix in Research Paper – Examples and...

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook (2009)

Chapter: chapter 3 - defining the research: purpose, focus, and potential uses.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

14 Chapter 3 identifies roles, relationships, and responsibilities of stakeholders. It examines principal steps involved in planning an airport passenger-rate data collection effort. It begins with the ques- tion of whether the potential benefits of the proposed effort outweigh the anticipated cost; describes different types of research (i.e., exploratory, descriptive, inferential); summarizes the questions each type addresses; and notes the ends to which the data might be used. 3.1 Roles and Responsibilities When an airport data collection event is first mentioned, it invariably raises numerous ques- tions: Who is asking for the data? How will it be used? What’s the budget? What’s the schedule? What kind of resources can be made available? Without answers to these fundamental questions, the success of your research is in jeopardy. This section will help the researcher establish the role of key stakeholders and their interrelationships within the team. Many entities can sponsor a data collection study, including airports, airlines, manufacturers, and various agencies. Likewise, there are many ways of managing and staffing the event and pro- moting involvement with stakeholders. There are therefore myriad ways of organizing a study. Exhibit 3-1 is an example of how a study could be arranged with the airport as the sponsor. 3.1.1 Client/Sponsor For airports, oversight is guided by a board, commission, or an authority consisting of appointed or elected officials. While these agencies typically provide oversight to airport man- agement and approve long-term plans and large capital expenditures, usually it is the airport director or manager who makes day-to-day decisions. Depending on the size of the airport, there may be several departments, each having its own manager. In such cases, passenger terminal-related studies would typically fall within the purview of the planning and/or engineering department and would be managed by its director. Regardless of the affiliation of the project sponsor(s), it is essential that the following ques- tions be answered clearly and unambiguously as they pertain to the sponsor at the beginning of any project: • Who has primary responsibility for defining the questions the study is intended to address? • What preference does this person or group have regarding ongoing involvement with the project? – What information would they like to receive, in what format, and with what frequency? – Who should be the principal point-of-contact (POC) on the client’s side for questions that might emerge related to the study’s focus, direction, etc.? C H A P T E R 3 Defining the Research: Purpose, Focus, and Potential Uses

Defining the Research: Purpose, Focus, and Potential Uses 15 • Who is the designated project manager, and what information would he or she like to receive, in what format, and with what frequency? • If the person given responsibility for day-to-day issues pertaining to access, authorizations, etc. is different from the project manager, who is that person, and what is the scope of issues he or she is authorized to address? • If problems or obstacles arise in implementing the study, and the project manager is not able or authorized to resolve them, what is the chain of persons through which the issue should be escalated? 3.1.2 Study Team The size of the study team will depend on the team’s depth and organization, and the size, duration, and complexity of the study itself. For a typical medium- to large-scale study, the roles listed in the following sections are the most typical. Multiple roles might be assumed by a single person or distributed across multiple persons. Titles vary as well, but the functions are largely universal. Project Manager The project manager is typically a mid-level to senior person who has the long-term, day-to- day relationship with his or her client counterpart. The need for the passenger-related process- ing rate study may initially originate from discussions between the project manager and those within the airport or airline. Survey Manager The survey manager is usually a mid-level staff person. His/her role on the project would be to oversee the day-to-day management of the data processing rate study, including leading the development of the scope, schedule, and budget; developing the team; and assigning roles and responsibilities. The survey manager would have the responsibility of ensuring the survey goals were adequately defined and met. Decision Maker Survey Manager Admin. Support Staffing Source (e.g., airport personnel, mkt. research firm) Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor Sponsor/Client (Airport) (Large Airport: Dir./Mgr.) Project Manager (Large Airport: Dir. Planning/Eng.) (Small Airport: Apt. Mgr.) Project Manager (Typ. oversees multiple tasks of which survey is but one part) Study Team (Typically, Consultant) Statistical Technical Expert Survey Assistant Data Analyst IT Analyst Other Stakeholders • Airlines • Agencies • Concessionaires Exhibit 3-1. Typical sponsor and study team roles (assuming an airport is the sponsor).

16 Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook Research and Statistical Expert A person(s) with expertise in research methodology and quantitative/statistical analysis should be consulted to develop, or provide comments and recommendations about, the overall methodology, the sampling plan, and so forth. Most of this person’s input would occur at the project’s initiation. A distinction is sometimes drawn in the consulting literature among differ- ent approaches to consulting. One such approach, generally referred to as process consultation might be of particular appeal.1 When acting in this role, the consultant not only provides tech- nical expertise related to the specific project, but also works with the client to develop expertise. This arrangement has the goal of, over time, reducing the reliance on the consultant. Survey Assistant The survey assistant has primary responsibility for assisting the survey project manager and secondarily to assist others on the project team throughout the duration of the study. Typically, this staff person will be at a junior level. The degree of assistance this person can provide is based on his/her level of education and current skill sets. Data Analyst The data analyst should not only be well-versed in technical analysis, but should also have a strong familiarity with the airport terminal environment. This person could be a terminal or air- port planner or aviation architect. The analyst is often largely responsible for documenting results, and responsibilities might extend to presenting findings to the client. Administrative Support Data collection efforts are inherently complex and, as such, often require a significant level of coordination and administration. The staff person serving this function would be responsible for such things as making travel plans, scheduling visits to the airport’s security office, buying supplies, shipping and receiving materials, scheduling meetings, preparing invoices and con- tracts, and editing/proofing the report. Data Collection Staff For small studies (e.g., small airports where only a few functional elements are being observed for a limited time period), airport/airline or consultant staffing may be used. For larger studies, typically examining multiple functional elements of a medium or large airport over a multi-day period, a market-research firm is frequently employed. The data collection staff reports directly to the survey manager. 3.2 Is the Study Needed? While the need for data collection is often justifiable, the benefit of validating the need, and avoiding what might be a costly, and possibly unjustified, effort well exceeds the relatively minor cost of pausing to consider a few basic questions (see Appendix C for more information). Exhibit 3-2 illustrates these questions. 3.3 Research Fundamentals This section summarizes a number of fundamental issues and terms related to the research process. (Additional detail is included in Appendix C.) 1 Schein, E. H. (1999). Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship. NY: Addison Wesley.

Research is a dynamic process with both deductive and inductive dimensions. This differs in some ways from what some present as the “traditional” approach to research, i.e., that theory drives hypothesis testing. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn’t work this way. 3.3.1 Theory, Hypotheses, and Evidence The word “theory” often implies a formal set of laws, propositions, variables, and the like, whose relationships are clearly defined. A related implication is that theory may not be particu- larly germane to the everyday world of work. This view of theory is not incorrect, but neither is it complete. While theory can be abstract and complex in its detail, it does not necessarily have to be abstract, complex, or formal. It can be thought of more broadly and simply as an explanation of “how the world works.” For exam- ple, an organization might develop a mission or a value statement (or both); engrave the words in a medium intended to last millennia; and prominently display the statement in the workplace with the intent of communicating to all its perspective clients on issues pertinent to its view. In Defining the Research: Purpose, Focus, and Potential Uses 17 Question Things to Consider Have relevant data been collected at this airport in the past that might be used rather than collecting new data? Might you be able to get data from another airport similar in key ways to this airport? Are there data available that might help answer the research question? Might access to the data be blocked due to proprietary or security issues? Sometimes the data are perceived to be so sensitive that the “owner” of the data may not give permission to share it. Has the decision already been made, and the data are being collected to legitimize the decision? Is there anything to suggest that the study is an attempt to “prove” something true or false? What role will the results play in the decision being considered? To what extent will the decision makers be persuaded by the results? What will the decision makers accept as credible evidence? Before collecting data, make certain that the research plan will result in data that the sponsors will accept. It is better to learn beforehand, for example, that the proposed sampling plan does not meet the sponsor’s criteria for rigor. What is the cost of the potential investment that the data will help inform? What is the cost of conducting the research? Does the benefit equal or outweigh the cost? Cost should be considered not only in economic terms, but as safety, inconvenience, and so forth. Exhibit 3-2. Considerations to determine need for data collection.

2008, British Airways announced a new venture: OpenSkies. The “theory” OpenSkies used to define its clients is reflected in its advertising as shown in Exhibit 3-3. So, how does this relate to airport processing rate studies? It relates in the following two ways: 1. The published research literature may well contain formal theories relevant to what data to collect and how to collect it. For example, Appendix B includes a bibliography of recent research articles related to passenger and baggage processing in airports. It is intended to illustrate the scope and diversity of research available on a given topic. Before embarking on an investigation, review the literature to see how it might enhance the quality of the planned research. The Internet provides access to numerous sources for such scholarly documents. 2. Informally, the key decisions about how to go about collecting data are grounded in assump- tions about how things work (i.e., one’s own theory). For example, you might choose to col- lect passenger security screening data between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on a Monday because your experience is that this time period reflects peak checkpoint activity. While this “theory” may be correct in some circumstances, it may also be wrong in others. For example, at many vacation-oriented airports, the peak at the checkpoint occurs in the late morning due to check-out times at hotels. Another common view of research is of the stereotypical scientist, objectively testing hypothe- ses (or an “educated guess”) arising from theory. Exhibit 3-4 reflects this general approach to research. This is certainly one way in which research proceeds, but, similar to theory, it is not the only way. Before considering an “evidence first” approach, we wish to mention a variation on the tra- ditional approach displayed in Exhibit 3-4 that has been gaining dominance in recent years. In particular, this is a confidence interval (CI) approach rather than a hypothesis driven approach. In a hypothesis driven approach, the researcher’s primary interest is in testing a population parameter, and uses a sample drawn from the population. When the researcher takes a CI approach, the intent is to calculate an interval within which the population parameter is likely 18 Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook Exhibit 3-3. OpenSkies advertisement. Question key assumptions, even if they seem to be “common sense,” by checking with informants, look- ing at the literature, etc.

to fall. Hypotheses are stated before data collection; CIs are calculated after data are collected.2 In conducting passenger-processing rate research in airport environments, the CI approach is going to be the most appropriate in most instances. A markedly different approach to those described above is shown in Exhibit 3-5. In contrast to beginning with a theory and then collecting evidence to test the theory or estimate a popula- tion parameter within some CI, this approach begins with evidence for which one seeks poten- tial explanations, or “theories” to explain the evidence. This approach is subsumed under the broad heading of Bayesian Law, so named after the 18th Century English clergyman, Thomas Bayes, credited with developing the approach. Depending on where one begins can result in potentially dramatic conclusions (see Exhibit 3-6). This is important because limiting oneself to a particular perspective of how research should be conducted and how data ought to be gathered may impose unnecessary constraints. What is important is that the research is executed systematically and with rigor. The documented ways in which science proceeds are often idealized: portraying what is inherently a very dynamic and nonlinear process as logical and linear. 3.3.2 Research Questions and Purposes A basic issue in research is specifying the question the research will help answer. Penning a specific question also helps in determining what approach might be best used in seeking an Defining the Research: Purpose, Focus, and Potential Uses 19 Theory Drives questions & hypotheses Hypothesis: Installing n kiosks will reduce the average time of passengers waiting in line by 10% over check-in agents. Leading to a conclusion Drives data collection Followed by analysis Exhibit 3-4. Hypothesis driven approach. Evidence leads to speculation about possible explanations Which may or may not drive more data collection & analysis Theory Exhibit 3-5. Bayesian approach. 2 While these approaches are presented here as mutually exclusive, they might be integrated in practice.

answer. One classic text in research methodology5 suggests that a research question should express a relationship between two or more variables, and it should imply an empirical approach, that is, it should lend itself to being measured using data. A variable is, not surprisingly, some- thing that can vary, or assume different values. In the next section, illustrative questions are given, categorized by the purpose of research with which they are best matched. The five research purposes are presented as the following: 1. Explore, 2. Describe, 3. Test, 4. Evaluate, and 5. Predict. The distinctions among these purposes are not absolute, nor are they necessarily exclusive of one another. A research initiative might be directed at answering questions with multiple pur- poses. Indeed, this is but one of many ways of classifying research. In addition, the reader whose practice lies primarily in the arena of modeling and simulation might note their absence from this list. Although modeling and simulation applications require input data, for example, to gen- erate distributions and parameters for use as stochastic varieties in modeling, the techniques used to collect data are largely independent of specific applications (such as simulation and model- ing). Those issues unique to modeling are beyond the scope of this guidebook. Explore (Exploratory Research) Exploratory research is sometimes defined as “what to do when you don’t know what you don’t know.” Its aim is discovery and to develop an understanding of relevant variables and their interactions in a real (field) environment. Exploratory research, as such, is appropriate when the 20 Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook If your intent is to… And take action based on… Use… Example Test a hypothesis regarding a population parameter Whether you reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis Hypothesis testing approach The proportion of coach passengers checking in more than 60 min prior to scheduled departure is 80% H A : p > .80 3 H 0 : p .804 Estimate a population parameter The confidence interval selected CI approach Plus or minus 5%, what is the average time coach passengers check in prior to scheduled departure? Determine the likelihood of an event given some evidence The calculated probability Bayesian approach What is the probability that a passenger’s carry on- luggage will be subject to secondary security screening given that the passenger is boarding an international flight? Exhibit 3-6. Research approaches. 3 This is the research, or Alternative, hypothesis. It reads: The proportion is greater than 80%. 4 This is the null hypothesis. It is what is tested, and reads: The proportion is less than or equal to 80%. 5 Kerlinger F. & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th ed. NY: Harcourt Brace.

problem is not well defined. For example, passenger complaints about signs within a facility might prompt the following exploratory question: • “Where should signage be located to minimize passenger confusion?” As another example, if a new security checkpoint configuration is proposed, it may be too novel to rely on variables used in other studies. The question, therefore, might then be the following: • “How does a given alternative security checkpoint configuration affect capacity?” This type of research is often qualitative rather than quantitative. That is, it employs verbal descriptors of observations, rather than counts of those observations (see Appendix C for more information). Describe (Descriptive Research) Descriptive research, as the name implies, is intended to describe phenomena. While descrip- tive research might involve collecting qualitative data by asking open-ended questions in an interview, it typically employs quantitative methods resulting in reporting frequencies, calculat- ing averages, and the like. The following two questions illustrate the nature of descriptive research. Each implies that the relevant variables have been identified as well as the conditions under which the data should be collected. • “What is the average number of passengers departing on international flights on weekday evenings in July at a given airport?” • “How many men use a given restroom at a particular location at a given time?” Test (Experimental and Quasi-experimental Research and Modeling) Often, the intent of the research is not simply to describe something, but to test the impact of some intervention. In an airport environment, such research might be initiated to evaluate the relative effectiveness of a security screening technology in accurately detecting contraband. It is similar in approach to research conducted to assess the relative effectiveness of an experimental drug in comparison to a control (placebo) or another drug. Variables are often manipulated and controlled. This research lies largely outside the scope of this guidebook and, as such, will not receive much attention. Examples of questions that might be asked in this type of research include the following: • “What is the impact of posting airline personnel near check-in waiting lines on the average passenger waiting time?” In addition to the classic “experiment,” simulation modeling might be used, employing rep- resentative data to help answer questions such as the following: • “What would be the impact on processing time of a new security measure being considered?” • “How many agents are needed to keep passenger waiting time below an average of 10 min?” Evaluate (Evaluative Research) Sometimes, the intent of the research is to assess performance against some standard or stated requirement. Basically, evaluation research is concerned with seeing how well something is work- ing, with an eye toward improving performance, as illustrated by the following two questions: • “Is the performance of a given piece of equipment in the field consistent with manufacturer’s specifications?” • “On average, what proportion of passengers waits in a security checkpoint line longer than the 10-minute maximum threshold specified by an airline?” Defining the Research: Purpose, Focus, and Potential Uses 21

Predict Finally, research might be initiated to attempt to predict or anticipate potential emerging pat- terns before they occur. This is related to environmental scanning, insofar as it represents a delib- erate attempt to monitor potential trends and their impact. For example, in the early 1970s, one might have posed the following question: • “What would be the impact of an increase in the number of women in the workforce on air- port design?” There are numerous documented approaches to answering questions such as these. While well beyond the scope of this guidebook, here is one as illustrative: scenario planning. This method involves convening persons with relevant expertise to identify those areas that might most impact the industry (e.g., regulation, fuel costs, demographic changes), and then to systemati- cally consider what the best, worst, and might likely scenarios might be. The principal value of such an approach is that it facilitates deliberate consideration of future trends, and in so doing, presumably leaves people better prepared. When the goal of the research is to predict, data from multiple sources might be sought. The scenario planning example relies, to an extent, on the judgments of experts. Probabilities can also be drawn from historical data to help identify patterns and trends. Exhibit 3-7 is a summary of the key characteristics of each research type. 3.4 Developing the Research Plan Large research studies, particularly when funding is being requested, often require the researchers to adhere to a specific set of technical requirements. The Research Team is aware that the ad hoc and short timeline of many airport-planning research efforts makes developing a “for- mal” research plan impracticable. Nonetheless, even though you might not have the “luxury” of 22 Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook Research Purpose Characteristics Explore Primary purpose: to better define or understand a situation. Data will help answer the research question. The benefit of conducting the research justifies the cost. Qualitative data are recorded, using observation. Describe Primary purpose: to provide descriptive information about something. Test Primary purpose: to assess the impact of a proposed change in procedure or policy. Evaluate Primary purpose: to assess performance against requirements. Predict Primary purpose: to consider possible future circumstances with the purpose of being better prepared for emerging trends. Exhibit 3-7. Summary of research types.

developing such a plan, there are benefits to considering the issues described in this section, as well as documenting basic information. The following are the three major elements the Research Team believes worth documenting, regardless of the size of the research endeavor.6 1. Goals or aims. 2. Background and significance. 3. Research design and methods. Each is described in the sections that follow. 3.4.1 Goals or Aims Specify the question the research is intended to help answer or the specific purpose of the research. The experience of having to translate an intended purpose into words can help clarify your intent. In addition, a written statement can serve as a way of ensuring that your understand- ing of the purpose of the research is consistent with that of the sponsor and other stakeholders. Two examples follow: Statement of Purpose—Example 1 The purpose of this study is to aid decision makers in determining if extending the dwell time of the airport’s automated guideway transit system (AGTS) vehicles from 30 sec to 35 sec at the Concourse C station might improve overall system capacity by providing more boarding time for passengers. Statement of Purpose—Example 2 The goal of this study is to provide airport management with recent data showing the percent- age of arriving flights whose first checked bag reaches the claim device within the airport’s goal of 15 min. 3.4.2 Background and Significance Document what is already known, and specify how the proposed research initiative will add to this knowledge. Consider a “devil’s advocate” perspective by asking what the consequences of not doing the research might be. 3.4.3 Research Design and Methods In this section, describe how you will go about collecting and analyzing data. Additional infor- mation about these issues, including sampling strategies and sample size, is presented in Chapter 5 and in Appendix C. The research plan does not need be lengthy. It should, however, capture key information that, were it not documented and those familiar with the research were not available, would be diffi- cult to ascertain. Defining the Research: Purpose, Focus, and Potential Uses 23 6 This section is partly based on guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/esstplan.htm.

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 23: Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook provides guidance on how to collect accurate passenger-related processing data for evaluating facility requirements to promote efficient and cost-effective airport terminal design.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

An Introduction to Research Use Only (RUO)

In this blog, we recap our eBook, “An Introduction to Research Use Only (RUO)” – Click HERE to download the entire publication.

Learn how it differs from adjacent labels, the FDA and EU guidance, its appropriate use, and the consequences of mislabeling products RUO.

Introduction

In the complex world of medical device development, regulation, and distribution, finding the appropriate label to put on a device may not be simple. When is one label appropriate over another? Does a device need to go through additional testing, verification, or validation? And what are the consequences of using the wrong label? In this eBook, we’ll cover the differences between Research Use Only (RUO) and a medical device – although, it’s generally a very clear distinction.

Using the right language and label is critical to complying with best practices. This is why Regulatory Affairs works with the regulatory bodies to ensure that the limitations of the product are properly documented. In a rush to get products to market, it may be tempting to use a Research Use Only (RUO) label to avoid additional regulatory processes while still empowering other researchers and developers. However, there are risks to using the RUO label inappropriately that can have serious consequences for developers, users, and patients. In fact, mislabeling a product is illegal, and punishable. You can see an example warning letter the FDA sent to Carolina Liquid Chemistries Corp after finding intentional mislabeling in 2019 here.

This introduction will provide an overview of the Research Use Only label, how it differs from similar, adjacent labels, its appropriate use, and the consequences of mislabeling products RUO.

What is Research Use Only (RUO)?

The label Research Use Only (RUO) is generally used to indicate products that are intended for scientific research only. They cannot be used for diagnostic or medical purposes. However, there is no standard definition of “research use only,” and the label has slightly different meanings in the European Union and the United States. With the IVDR regulations, RUO products that are being used in the LDT space are going to be revisited and potentially reclassified as a medical device. With this new classification, teams will likely need to follow design controls, best practices, and industry standards.

What is the FDA guidance on Research Use Only products?

Under the FDA’s guidance issued in 2013 , a product labeled Research Use Only is an In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) product “that is in the laboratory research phase of development and is being shipped or delivered for an investigation that is not subject to part 812.” The agency includes in this category:

• “Tests that are in development to identify test kit methodology, necessary components, and analytes to be measured.
• “Instrumentation, software, or other electrical/mechanical components under development to determine correct settings, subcomponents, subassemblies, basic operational characteristics, and possible use methods.
• “Reagents under development to determine production methods, purification levels, packaging needs, shelf life, storage conditions, etc.”

The European guidance document MEDDEV 2.14/2 states that a product categorized as an RUO product “must have no intended medical purpose or objective.” The guidance does exempt some tests developed for in-house use as long as the products are not sold to other companies. Some examples of items that can be classified as “research use only” under this exemption include PCR enzymes, gel component agars, and primers.

RELATED: FDA released new draft guidance of premarket submissions for medical devices – are you ready?

What is the difference between ruo and ivd.

An IVD is an “In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device,” and the general term applies to any device or product that either alone or with other products is intended to be used for diagnostic, monitoring, or compatibility purposes. There are four different regulatory levels for IVDs:

• Research Use Only (RUO)
• General Laboratory Use (GLU)
• For Performance Studies Only (PSO)
• In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD)

The simplest explanation for these different levels is that each increasing level requires more testing and oversight. Research Use Only products are at the lowest level of regulation, and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices are at the highest level. Occasionally in the US, products will be labeled as “RUO IVD,” which means an in vitro device that is intended for research use only.

Products labeled with the “CE-IVD” label indicate that they have progressed through the applicable regulatory process and standards (such as IVDD or IVDR). These products are approved for diagnostic use and must include the IVD symbol to be used for medical purposes.

In the EU, as of May 2022, IVDs must comply with Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR) . The IVDR defines IVDs as follows:

“‘in vitro diagnostic medical device’ means any medical device which is a reagent, reagent product, calibrator, control material, kit, instrument, apparatus, piece of equipment, software or system, whether used alone or in combination, intended by the manufacturer to be used in vitro for the examination of specimens, including blood and tissue donations, derived from the human body, solely or principally for the purpose of providing information on one or more of the following:

(a) concerning a physiological or pathological process or state; (b) concerning congenital physical or mental impairments; (c) concerning the predisposition to a medical condition or a disease; (d) to determine the safety and compatibility with potential recipients; (e) to predict treatment response or reactions; (f) to define or monitoring therapeutic measures.”

All IVDs that comply with the IVDR must carry the CE Mark if marketed in the EU.

Research Use Only products are not subject to regulatory requirements in either the US or the EU, but because they don’t meet the same compliance standards as IVDs, they must be clearly labeled as RUO products and cannot be used for medical purposes.

A known exception is the lab developed test (LDT) pathway for clinical purposes.

What are the requirements for an RUO product?

In the US, RUO products are basically unregulated and do not need to meet any specific requirements to carry the RUO label. The FDA does not specify any restrictions or limitations on RUO products, provided they are clearly labeled “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.” For this reason, RUO products can be an excellent solution for laboratories that need research materials for testing and research purposes. Because products with the RUO label do not require extensive testing, verification, and validation, they tend to be more cost-effective for research purposes.

The EU rules are similar. Because RUO products do not have clinical applications, they are not considered medical devices, and there are no requirements for RUO products defined by either the IVDD or the IVDR. These products should not be marked with the IVD mark, and they should be clearly labeled as “Research Use Only.”

RELATED: See how Jama Software ® helped Össur improve the mobility of millions by replacing process rigidity with speed and agility.

Are there alternatives to ruo labels.

Given the significant differences between labeling a product as RUO and labeling a product as IVD, manufacturers and users can’t be too careful when it comes to assigning labels or using products for specific purposes. If there is a risk to using products labeled as RUO, manufacturers and users should opt for products that have attained a higher compliance level. For example, for a doctor’s office or home use, IVD is the right path. For clinical purposes or hospital labs, RUO could be used as LDT as long as they are CAP/CLIA certified, such was the case with COVID-19 testing kits when the pandemic first hit.

For products that meet a higher degree of compliance, it is possible to assign General Laboratory Use (GLU), Performance Studies Only (PSO), or even In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) labels. However, depending on the intended use for the Research Use Only products, pursuing these additional levels of compliance may or may not make sense.

What is CLIA certification?

CLIA stands for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regulates all clinical laboratory testing performed on humans in the United States through CLIA.

What is a CAP accreditation?

CAP stands for The College of American Pathologists (CAP) . The purpose of CAP laboratory accreditation is to ensure laboratories provide precise test results for accurate patient diagnoses, meet CLIA and CAP requirements, and demonstrate compliance with professionally and scientifically sound and approved laboratory operating standards.

What are RUO products used for?

As the name implies, RUO projects should be used for research purposes only. They may be used for basic research, pharmaceutical research, or in-house manufacturing of “home brew kits” for research purposes and potentially for clinical applications via the LDT pathway. RUO products are specifically not to be used to make diagnoses, conduct performance studies, or as a substitute or comparator for a CE-IVD device. They may also not be used for market or feasibility studies. Raw ingredients labeled as RUO products may not be incorporated into a finished IVD product.

Learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of the RUO label (and more) by downloading the entire eBook HERE .

• Recent Posts

• [Webinar Recap] Key Systems Engineering Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Framing - March 5, 2024
• Jama Connect® Features in Five: Medical Device & Life Sciences Solution 2.0 – Part 2 - July 28, 2023
• Jama Connect® Features in Five: Medical Device & Life Sciences Solution 2.0 – Part 1 - July 21, 2023

USA 135 SW Taylor Suite 200 Portland, Oregon, 97204

EUROPE Amsterdam Queens Tower Delflandlaan 1, 1062EA Amsterdam The Netherlands

© 2024 Jama Software

• JAMA CONNECT
• Product Overview
• Pricing and Licensing
• Success Programs
• Resource Library
• User Community
• Privacy Policy
• Privacy and Security
• Preferences

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

11.1 The Purpose of Research Writing

Learning objectives.

• Identify reasons to research writing projects.
• Outline the steps of the research writing process.

Why was the Great Wall of China built? What have scientists learned about the possibility of life on Mars? What roles did women play in the American Revolution? How does the human brain create, store, and retrieve memories? Who invented the game of football, and how has it changed over the years?

You may know the answers to these questions off the top of your head. If you are like most people, however, you find answers to tough questions like these by searching the Internet, visiting the library, or asking others for information. To put it simply, you perform research.

Whether you are a scientist, an artist, a paralegal, or a parent, you probably perform research in your everyday life. When your boss, your instructor, or a family member asks you a question that you do not know the answer to, you locate relevant information, analyze your findings, and share your results. Locating, analyzing, and sharing information are key steps in the research process, and in this chapter, you will learn more about each step. By developing your research writing skills, you will prepare yourself to answer any question no matter how challenging.

Reasons for Research

When you perform research, you are essentially trying to solve a mystery—you want to know how something works or why something happened. In other words, you want to answer a question that you (and other people) have about the world. This is one of the most basic reasons for performing research.

But the research process does not end when you have solved your mystery. Imagine what would happen if a detective collected enough evidence to solve a criminal case, but she never shared her solution with the authorities. Presenting what you have learned from research can be just as important as performing the research. Research results can be presented in a variety of ways, but one of the most popular—and effective—presentation forms is the research paper . A research paper presents an original thesis, or purpose statement, about a topic and develops that thesis with information gathered from a variety of sources.

If you are curious about the possibility of life on Mars, for example, you might choose to research the topic. What will you do, though, when your research is complete? You will need a way to put your thoughts together in a logical, coherent manner. You may want to use the facts you have learned to create a narrative or to support an argument. And you may want to show the results of your research to your friends, your teachers, or even the editors of magazines and journals. Writing a research paper is an ideal way to organize thoughts, craft narratives or make arguments based on research, and share your newfound knowledge with the world.

Write a paragraph about a time when you used research in your everyday life. Did you look for the cheapest way to travel from Houston to Denver? Did you search for a way to remove gum from the bottom of your shoe? In your paragraph, explain what you wanted to research, how you performed the research, and what you learned as a result.

Research Writing and the Academic Paper

No matter what field of study you are interested in, you will most likely be asked to write a research paper during your academic career. For example, a student in an art history course might write a research paper about an artist’s work. Similarly, a student in a psychology course might write a research paper about current findings in childhood development.

Having to write a research paper may feel intimidating at first. After all, researching and writing a long paper requires a lot of time, effort, and organization. However, writing a research paper can also be a great opportunity to explore a topic that is particularly interesting to you. The research process allows you to gain expertise on a topic of your choice, and the writing process helps you remember what you have learned and understand it on a deeper level.

Research Writing at Work

Knowing how to write a good research paper is a valuable skill that will serve you well throughout your career. Whether you are developing a new product, studying the best way to perform a procedure, or learning about challenges and opportunities in your field of employment, you will use research techniques to guide your exploration. You may even need to create a written report of your findings. And because effective communication is essential to any company, employers seek to hire people who can write clearly and professionally.

Writing at Work

Take a few minutes to think about each of the following careers. How might each of these professionals use researching and research writing skills on the job?

• Medical laboratory technician
• Small business owner
• Information technology professional
• Freelance magazine writer

A medical laboratory technician or information technology professional might do research to learn about the latest technological developments in either of these fields. A small business owner might conduct research to learn about the latest trends in his or her industry. A freelance magazine writer may need to research a given topic to write an informed, up-to-date article.

Think about the job of your dreams. How might you use research writing skills to perform that job? Create a list of ways in which strong researching, organizing, writing, and critical thinking skills could help you succeed at your dream job. How might these skills help you obtain that job?

Steps of the Research Writing Process

How does a research paper grow from a folder of brainstormed notes to a polished final draft? No two projects are identical, but most projects follow a series of six basic steps.

These are the steps in the research writing process:

• Choose a topic.
• Plan and schedule time to research and write.
• Conduct research.
• Organize research and ideas.
• Draft your paper.
• Revise and edit your paper.

Each of these steps will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. For now, though, we will take a brief look at what each step involves.

Step 1: Choosing a Topic

As you may recall from Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” , to narrow the focus of your topic, you may try freewriting exercises, such as brainstorming. You may also need to ask a specific research question —a broad, open-ended question that will guide your research—as well as propose a possible answer, or a working thesis . You may use your research question and your working thesis to create a research proposal . In a research proposal, you present your main research question, any related subquestions you plan to explore, and your working thesis.

Step 2: Planning and Scheduling

Before you start researching your topic, take time to plan your researching and writing schedule. Research projects can take days, weeks, or even months to complete. Creating a schedule is a good way to ensure that you do not end up being overwhelmed by all the work you have to do as the deadline approaches.

During this step of the process, it is also a good idea to plan the resources and organizational tools you will use to keep yourself on track throughout the project. Flowcharts, calendars, and checklists can all help you stick to your schedule. See Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” , Section 11.2 “Steps in Developing a Research Proposal” for an example of a research schedule.

Step 3: Conducting Research

When going about your research, you will likely use a variety of sources—anything from books and periodicals to video presentations and in-person interviews.

Your sources will include both primary sources and secondary sources . Primary sources provide firsthand information or raw data. For example, surveys, in-person interviews, and historical documents are primary sources. Secondary sources, such as biographies, literary reviews, or magazine articles, include some analysis or interpretation of the information presented. As you conduct research, you will take detailed, careful notes about your discoveries. You will also evaluate the reliability of each source you find.

Step 4: Organizing Research and the Writer’s Ideas

When your research is complete, you will organize your findings and decide which sources to cite in your paper. You will also have an opportunity to evaluate the evidence you have collected and determine whether it supports your thesis, or the focus of your paper. You may decide to adjust your thesis or conduct additional research to ensure that your thesis is well supported.

Remember, your working thesis is not set in stone. You can and should change your working thesis throughout the research writing process if the evidence you find does not support your original thesis. Never try to force evidence to fit your argument. For example, your working thesis is “Mars cannot support life-forms.” Yet, a week into researching your topic, you find an article in the New York Times detailing new findings of bacteria under the Martian surface. Instead of trying to argue that bacteria are not life forms, you might instead alter your thesis to “Mars cannot support complex life-forms.”

Step 5: Drafting Your Paper

Now you are ready to combine your research findings with your critical analysis of the results in a rough draft. You will incorporate source materials into your paper and discuss each source thoughtfully in relation to your thesis or purpose statement.

When you cite your reference sources, it is important to pay close attention to standard conventions for citing sources in order to avoid plagiarism , or the practice of using someone else’s words without acknowledging the source. Later in this chapter, you will learn how to incorporate sources in your paper and avoid some of the most common pitfalls of attributing information.

Step 6: Revising and Editing Your Paper

In the final step of the research writing process, you will revise and polish your paper. You might reorganize your paper’s structure or revise for unity and cohesion, ensuring that each element in your paper flows into the next logically and naturally. You will also make sure that your paper uses an appropriate and consistent tone.

Once you feel confident in the strength of your writing, you will edit your paper for proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting. When you complete this final step, you will have transformed a simple idea or question into a thoroughly researched and well-written paper you can be proud of!

Review the steps of the research writing process. Then answer the questions on your own sheet of paper.

• In which steps of the research writing process are you allowed to change your thesis?
• In step 2, which types of information should you include in your project schedule?
• What might happen if you eliminated step 4 from the research writing process?

Key Takeaways

• People undertake research projects throughout their academic and professional careers in order to answer specific questions, share their findings with others, increase their understanding of challenging topics, and strengthen their researching, writing, and analytical skills.
• The research writing process generally comprises six steps: choosing a topic, scheduling and planning time for research and writing, conducting research, organizing research and ideas, drafting a paper, and revising and editing the paper.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

Research Methods | Definitions, Types, Examples

Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design . When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make.

First, decide how you will collect data . Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question :

• Qualitative vs. quantitative : Will your data take the form of words or numbers?
• Primary vs. secondary : Will you collect original data yourself, or will you use data that has already been collected by someone else?
• Descriptive vs. experimental : Will you take measurements of something as it is, or will you perform an experiment?

Second, decide how you will analyze the data .

• For quantitative data, you can use statistical analysis methods to test relationships between variables.
• For qualitative data, you can use methods such as thematic analysis to interpret patterns and meanings in the data.

Table of contents

Methods for collecting data, examples of data collection methods, methods for analyzing data, examples of data analysis methods, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research methods.

Data is the information that you collect for the purposes of answering your research question . The type of data you need depends on the aims of your research.

Qualitative vs. quantitative data

Your choice of qualitative or quantitative data collection depends on the type of knowledge you want to develop.

For questions about ideas, experiences and meanings, or to study something that can’t be described numerically, collect qualitative data .

If you want to develop a more mechanistic understanding of a topic, or your research involves hypothesis testing , collect quantitative data .

You can also take a mixed methods approach , where you use both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Primary vs. secondary research

Primary research is any original data that you collect yourself for the purposes of answering your research question (e.g. through surveys , observations and experiments ). Secondary research is data that has already been collected by other researchers (e.g. in a government census or previous scientific studies).

If you are exploring a novel research question, you’ll probably need to collect primary data . But if you want to synthesize existing knowledge, analyze historical trends, or identify patterns on a large scale, secondary data might be a better choice.

Descriptive vs. experimental data

In descriptive research , you collect data about your study subject without intervening. The validity of your research will depend on your sampling method .

In experimental research , you systematically intervene in a process and measure the outcome. The validity of your research will depend on your experimental design .

To conduct an experiment, you need to be able to vary your independent variable , precisely measure your dependent variable, and control for confounding variables . If it’s practically and ethically possible, this method is the best choice for answering questions about cause and effect.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Your data analysis methods will depend on the type of data you collect and how you prepare it for analysis.

Data can often be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, survey responses could be analyzed qualitatively by studying the meanings of responses or quantitatively by studying the frequencies of responses.

Qualitative analysis methods

Qualitative analysis is used to understand words, ideas, and experiences. You can use it to interpret data that was collected:

• From open-ended surveys and interviews , literature reviews , case studies , ethnographies , and other sources that use text rather than numbers.
• Using non-probability sampling methods .

Qualitative analysis tends to be quite flexible and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your choices and assumptions and be careful to avoid research bias .

Quantitative analysis methods

Quantitative analysis uses numbers and statistics to understand frequencies, averages and correlations (in descriptive studies) or cause-and-effect relationships (in experiments).

You can use quantitative analysis to interpret data that was collected either:

• During an experiment .
• Using probability sampling methods .

Because the data is collected and analyzed in a statistically valid way, the results of quantitative analysis can be easily standardized and shared among researchers.

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

• Chi square test of independence
• Statistical power
• Descriptive statistics
• Degrees of freedom
• Pearson correlation
• Null hypothesis
• Double-blind study
• Case-control study
• Research ethics
• Data collection
• Hypothesis testing
• Structured interviews

Research bias

• Hawthorne effect
• Unconscious bias
• Recall bias
• Halo effect
• Self-serving bias
• Information bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples.

• What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples
• Data Collection | Definition, Methods & Examples

More interesting articles

• Between-Subjects Design | Examples, Pros, & Cons
• Cluster Sampling | A Simple Step-by-Step Guide with Examples
• Confounding Variables | Definition, Examples & Controls
• Construct Validity | Definition, Types, & Examples
• Content Analysis | Guide, Methods & Examples
• Control Groups and Treatment Groups | Uses & Examples
• Control Variables | What Are They & Why Do They Matter?
• Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples
• Correlational Research | When & How to Use
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Cross-Sectional Study | Definition, Uses & Examples
• Descriptive Research | Definition, Types, Methods & Examples
• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples
• Explanatory and Response Variables | Definitions & Examples
• Explanatory Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples
• Exploratory Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples
• External Validity | Definition, Types, Threats & Examples
• Extraneous Variables | Examples, Types & Controls
• Guide to Experimental Design | Overview, Steps, & Examples
• How Do You Incorporate an Interview into a Dissertation? | Tips
• How to Do Thematic Analysis | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples
• Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria | Examples & Definition
• Independent vs. Dependent Variables | Definition & Examples
• Inductive Reasoning | Types, Examples, Explanation
• Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach | Steps & Examples
• Internal Validity in Research | Definition, Threats, & Examples
• Internal vs. External Validity | Understanding Differences & Threats
• Longitudinal Study | Definition, Approaches & Examples
• Mediator vs. Moderator Variables | Differences & Examples
• Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Multistage Sampling | Introductory Guide & Examples
• Naturalistic Observation | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Operationalization | A Guide with Examples, Pros & Cons
• Population vs. Sample | Definitions, Differences & Examples
• Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods
• Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples
• Questionnaire Design | Methods, Question Types & Examples
• Random Assignment in Experiments | Introduction & Examples
• Random vs. Systematic Error | Definition & Examples
• Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and Examples
• Reproducibility vs Replicability | Difference & Examples
• Reproducibility vs. Replicability | Difference & Examples
• Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques & Examples
• Semi-Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Simple Random Sampling | Definition, Steps & Examples
• Single, Double, & Triple Blind Study | Definition & Examples
• Stratified Sampling | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Survey Research | Definition, Examples & Methods
• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide
• Systematic Sampling | A Step-by-Step Guide with Examples
• Textual Analysis | Guide, 3 Approaches & Examples
• The 4 Types of Reliability in Research | Definitions & Examples
• The 4 Types of Validity in Research | Definitions & Examples
• Transcribing an Interview | 5 Steps & Transcription Software
• Triangulation in Research | Guide, Types, Examples
• Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples
• Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples
• Types of Variables in Research & Statistics | Examples
• Unstructured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples
• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods
• What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Cohort Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples
• What Is a Controlled Experiment? | Definitions & Examples
• What Is a Double-Barreled Question?
• What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• What Is a Likert Scale? | Guide & Examples
• What Is a Prospective Cohort Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Retrospective Cohort Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples
• What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples
• What Is Concurrent Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Content Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Convenience Sampling? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Convergent Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Criterion Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Data Cleansing? | Definition, Guide & Examples
• What Is Deductive Reasoning? | Explanation & Examples
• What Is Discriminant Validity? | Definition & Example
• What Is Ecological Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Ethnography? | Definition, Guide & Examples
• What Is Face Validity? | Guide, Definition & Examples
• What Is Non-Probability Sampling? | Types & Examples
• What Is Participant Observation? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples
• What Is Predictive Validity? | Examples & Definition
• What Is Probability Sampling? | Types & Examples
• What Is Purposive Sampling? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Qualitative Observation? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples
• What Is Quantitative Observation? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Quantitative Research? | Definition, Uses & Methods

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Research Basics

• Introduction

So What Do We Mean By “Formal Research?”

• Guide License
• Types of Research
• Secondary Research | Literature Review
• Developing Your Topic
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Evaluating Sources
• Responsible Conduct of Research
• More Information

Paul V. Galvin Library

email: [email protected]

Chat with us:

Make a research appointment:, search our faq:.

A good working definition of research might be:

Research is the deliberate, purposeful, and systematic gathering of data, information, facts, and/or opinions for the advancement of personal, societal, or overall human knowledge.

Based on this definition, we all do research all the time. Most of this research is casual research. Asking friends what they think of different restaurants, looking up reviews of various products online, learning more about celebrities; these are all research.

Formal research includes the type of research most people think of when they hear the term “research”: scientists in white coats working in a fully equipped laboratory. But formal research is a much broader category that just this. Most people will never do laboratory research after graduating from college, but almost everybody will have to do some sort of formal research at some point in their careers.

Casual research is inward facing: it’s done to satisfy our own curiosity or meet our own needs, whether that’s choosing a reliable car or figuring out what to watch on TV. Formal research is outward facing. While it may satisfy our own curiosity, it’s primarily intended to be shared in order to achieve some purpose. That purpose could be anything: finding a cure for cancer, securing funding for a new business, improving some process at your workplace, proving the latest theory in quantum physics, or even just getting a good grade in your Humanities 200 class.

What sets formal research apart from casual research is the documentation of where you gathered your information from. This is done in the form of “citations” and “bibliographies.” Citing sources is covered in the section "Citing Your Sources."

Formal research also follows certain common patterns depending on what the research is trying to show or prove. These are covered in the section “Types of Research.”

• Next: Types of Research >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 11:50 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.iit.edu/research_basics

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

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

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

18k Accesses

Abstractspiepr Abs1

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

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

Part I. What Is Research?

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

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

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

Exercise 1.1

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.2

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

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

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

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing Scientific Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.4

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

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.5

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

Exercise 1.6

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

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.7

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

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 1.8

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

Exercise 1.9

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

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

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

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

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

Download citation

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

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Alison l. antes.

1 Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-6006

Leonard B. Maggi, Jr.

2 Department of Medicine, Division of Molecular Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-4102

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This “how-to” guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. The article begins with an overview of the responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions and that researchers receive fair credit.

INTRODUCTION

Doing research is stimulating and fulfilling work. Scientists make discoveries to build knowledge and solve problems, and they work with other dedicated researchers. Research is a highly complex activity, so it takes years for beginning researchers to learn everything they need to know to do science well. Part of this large body of knowledge is learning how to do research responsibly. Our purpose in this article is to provide graduate students a guide for how to perform responsible research. Our advice is also relevant to undergraduate researchers and for principal investigators (PIs), postdocs, or other researchers who mentor beginning researchers and wish to share our advice.

We begin by introducing some fundamentals about the responsible conduct of research (RCR), research misconduct, and ethical behavior. We focus on how to do reproducible science and be a responsible author. We provide practical advice for these topics and present scenarios to practice thinking through challenges in research. Our article concludes with decision-making strategies for addressing complex problems.

What is the responsible conduct of research?

To be committed to RCR means upholding the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity ( Steneck, 2007 ). Each day, RCR requires engaging in research in a conscientious, intentional fashion that yields the best science possible ( “Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct,” 2019 ). We adopt a practical, “how-to” approach, discussing the behaviors and habits that yield responsible research. However, some background knowledge about RCR is helpful to frame our discussion.

The scientific community uses many terms to refer to ethical and responsible behavior in research: responsible conduct of research, research integrity, scientific integrity, and research ethics ( National Academies of Science, 2009 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ; Steneck, 2007 ). A helpful way to think about these concepts is “doing good science in a good manner” ( DuBois & Antes, 2018 ). This means that the way researchers do their work, from experimental procedures to data analysis and interpretation, research reporting, and so on, leads to trustworthy research findings and conclusions. It also includes respectful interactions among researchers both within research teams (e.g., between peers, mentors and trainees, and collaborators) and with researchers external to the team (e.g., peer reviewers). We expand on trainee-mentor relationships and interpersonal dynamics with labmates in a companion article ( Antes & Maggi, 2021 ). When research involves human or animal research subjects, RCR includes protecting the well-being of research subjects.

We do not cover all potential RCR topics but focus on what we consider fundamentals for graduate students. Common topics covered in texts and courses on RCR include the following: authorship and publication; collaboration; conflicts of interest; data management, sharing, and ownership; intellectual property; mentor and trainee responsibilities; peer review; protecting human subjects; protecting animal subjects; research misconduct; the role of researchers in society; and laboratory safety. A number of topics prominently discussed among the scientific community in recent years are also relevant to RCR. These include the reproducibility of research ( Baker, 2016 ; Barba, 2016 ; Winchester, 2018 ), diversity and inclusion in science ( Asplund & Welle, 2018 ; Hofstra et al., 2020 ; Meyers, Brown, Moneta-Koehler, & Chalkley, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018a ; Roper, 2019 ), harassment and bullying ( Else, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018b ; “ No Place for Bullies in Science,” 2018 ), healthy research work environments ( Norris, Dirnagl, Zigmond, Thompson-Peer, & Chow, 2018 ; “ Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First,” 2018 ), and the mental health of graduate students ( Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, 2018 ).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) ( National Institutes of Health, 2009 ) and the National Science Foundation ( National Science Foundation, 2017 ) have formal policies indicating research trainees must receive education in RCR. Researchers are accountable to these funding agencies and the public which supports research through billions in tax dollars annually. The public stands to benefit from, or be harmed by, research. For example, the public may be harmed if medical treatments or social policies are based on untrustworthy research findings. Funding for research, participation in research, and utilization of the fruits of research all rely on public trust ( Resnik, 2011 ). Trustworthy findings are also essential for good stewardship of scarce resources ( Emanuel, Wendler, & Grady, 2000 ). Researchers are further accountable to their peers, colleagues, and scientists more broadly. Trust in the work of other researchers is essential for science to advance. Finally, researchers are accountable for complying with the rules and policies of their universities or research institutions, such as rules about laboratory safety, bullying and harassment, and the treatment of animal research subjects.

What is research misconduct?

When researchers intentionally misrepresent or manipulate their results, these cases of scientific fraud often make the news headlines ( Chappell, 2019 ; O’Connor, 2018 ; Park, 2012 ), and they can seriously undermine public trust in research. These cases also harm trust within the scientific community.

The U.S. defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) ( Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 ). FFP violate the fundamental ethical principle of honesty. Fabrication is making up data, and falsification is manipulating or changing data or results so they are no longer truthful. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty because it includes using someone’s words or ideas and portraying them as your own. When brought to light, misconduct involves lengthy investigations and serious consequences, such as ineligibility to receive federal research funding, loss of employment, paper retractions, and, for students, withdrawal of graduate degrees.

One aspect of responsible behavior includes addressing misconduct if you observe it. We suggest a guide titled “Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide” that provides advice for thinking about your options if you think you have observed misconduct ( Keith-Spiegel, Sieber, & Koocher, 2010 ). Your university will have written policies and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct. Making an allegation is very serious. As Keith-Spiegel et al.’s guide indicates, it is important to know the evidence that supports your claim, and what to expect in the process. We encourage, if possible, talking to the persons involved first. For example, one of us knew of a graduate student who reported to a journal editor their suspicion of falsified data in a manuscript. It turned out that the student was incorrect. Going above the PI directly to the editor ultimately led to the PI leaving the university, and the student had a difficult time finding a new lab to complete their degree. If the student had first spoken to the PI and lab members, they could have learned that their assumptions about the data in the paper were wrong. In turn, they could have avoided accusing the PI of a serious form of scientific misconduct—making up data—and harming everyone’s scientific career.

What shapes ethical behavior in the scientific workplace?

Responsible conduct of research and research misconduct are two sides of a continuum of behavior—RCR upholds the ideals of research and research misconduct violates them. Problematic practices that fall in the middle but are not defined formally as research misconduct have been labeled as detrimental research practices ( National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ). Researchers conducting misleading statistical analyses or PIs providing inadequate supervision are examples of the latter. Research suggests that characteristics of individual researchers and research environments explain (un)ethical behavior in the scientific workplace ( Antes et al., 2007 ; Antes, English, Baldwin, & DuBois, 2018 ; Davis, Riske-Morris, & Diaz, 2007 ; DuBois et al., 2013 ).

These two influences on ethical behavior are helpful to keep in mind when thinking about your behavior. When people think about their ethical behavior, they think about their personal values and integrity and tend to overlook the influence of their environment. While “being a good person” and having the right intentions are essential to ethical behavior, the environment also has an influence. In addition, knowledge of standards for ethical research is important for ethical behavior, and graduate students new to research do not yet know everything they need to. They also have not fully refined their ethical decision-making skills for solving professional problems. We discuss strategies for ethical decision-making in the final section of this article ( McIntosh, Antes, & DuBois, 2020 ).

The research environment influences ethical behavior in a number of ways. For example, if a research group explicitly discusses high standards for research, people will be more likely to prioritize these ideals in their behavior ( Plemmons et al., 2020 ). A mentor who sets a good example is another important factor ( Anderson et al., 2007 ). Research labs must also provide individuals with adequate training, supervision and feedback, opportunities to discuss data, and the psychological safety to feel comfortable communicating about problems, including mistakes ( Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019a , 2019b ). On the other hand, unfair research environments, inadequate supervision, poor communication, and severe stress and anxiety may undermine ethical decision-making and behavior; particularly when many of these factors exist together. Thus, (un)ethical behavior is a complex interplay of individual factors (e.g., personality, stress, decision-making skills) and the environment.

For graduate students, it is important to attend to what you are learning and how the environment around you might influence your behavior. You do not know what you do not know, and you necessarily rely on others to teach you responsible practices. So, it is important to be aware. Ultimately, you are accountable for your behavior. You cannot just say “I didn’t know.” Rather, just like you are curious about your scientific questions, maintain a curiosity about responsible behavior as a researcher. If you feel uncomfortable with something, pay attention to that feeling, speak to someone you trust, and seek out information about how to handle the situation. In what follows, we cover key tips for responsible behavior in the areas of reproducibility and authorship that we hope will help you as you begin.

HOW TO DO REPRODUCIBLE SCIENCE

The foremost responsibility of scientists is to ensure they conduct research in such a manner that the findings are trustworthy. Reproducibility is the ability to duplicate results ( Goodman, Fanelli, & Ioannidis, 2016 ). The scientific community has called for greater openness, transparency, and rigor as key remedies for lack of reproducibility ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). As a graduate student, essential to fostering reproducibility is the rigor of your approach to doing experiments and handling data. We discuss how to utilize research protocols, document experiments in a lab notebook, and handle data responsibly.

Utilize research protocols

1. learn and utilize the lab’s protocols.

Research protocols describe the step-by-step procedures for doing an experiment. They are critical for the quality and reproducibility of experiments. Lab members must learn and follow the lab’s protocols with the understanding that they may need to make adjustments based on the requirements of a specific experiment.

Also, it is important to distinguish between the experiment you are performing and analyzing the data from that experiment. For example, the experiment you want to perform might be to determine if loss of a gene blocks cell growth. Several protocols, each with pros and cons, will allow you to examine “cell growth.” Using the wrong experimental protocol can produce data that leads to muddled conclusions. In this example, the gene does block cell growth, but the experiment used to produce the data that you analyze to understand cell growth is wrong, thus giving a result that is a false negative.

When first joining a lab, it is essential to commit to learning the protocols necessary for your assigned research project. Researchers must ensure they are proficient in executing a protocol and can perform their experiments reliably. If you do not feel confident with a protocol, you should do practice runs if possible. Repetition is the best way to work through difficulties with protocols. Often it takes several attempts to work through the steps of a protocol before you will be comfortable performing it. Asking to watch another lab member perform the protocol is also helpful. Be sure to watch closely how steps are performed, as often there are minor steps taken that are not written down. Also, experienced lab members may do things as second nature and not think to explicitly mention them when working through the protocol. Ask questions of other lab members so that you can improve your knowledge and gain confidence with a protocol. It is better to ask a question than potentially ruin a valuable or hard-to-get sample.

Be cautious of differences in the standing protocols in the lab and how you actually perform the experiment. Even the most minor deviations can seriously impact the results and reproducibility of an experiment. As mentioned above, often there are minor things that are done that might not be listed in the protocol. Paying attention and asking questions are the best ways to learn, in addition to adding notes to the protocol if you find minor details are missing.

2. Develop your own protocols

Often you will find that a project requires a protocol that has not been performed in the lab. If performing a new experiment in the lab and no protocol exists, find a protocol and try it. Protocols can be obtained from many different sources. A great source is other labs on campus, as you can speak directly to the person who performs the experiment. There are many journal sources as well, such as Current Protocols, Nature Protocols, Nature Methods, and Cell STAR Methods . These methods journals provide the most detailed protocols for experiments often with troubleshooting tips. Scientific papers are the most common source of protocols. However, keep in mind that due to the common brevity of methods sections, they often omit crucial details or reference other papers that may not contain a complete description of the protocol.

3. Handle mistakes or problems promptly

At some point, everyone encounters problems with a protocol, or realizes they made a mistake. You should be prepared to handle this situation by being able to detail exactly how you performed the experiment. Did you skip a step? Shorten or lengthen a time point? Did you have to make a new buffer or borrow a labmate’s buffer? There are too many ways an experiment can go wrong to list here but being able to recount all the steps you performed in detail will help you work through the problem. Keep in mind that often the best way to understand how to perform an experiment is learning from when something goes wrong. This situation requires you to critically think through what was done and understand the steps taken. When everything works perfectly, it is easy to pay less attention to the details, which can lead to problems down the line.

It is up to you to be attentive and meticulous in the lab. Paying attention to the details may feel like a pain at first, or even seem overwhelming. Practice and repetition will help this focus on details become a natural part of your lab work. Ultimately, this skill will be essential to being a responsible scientist.

Document experiments in a lab notebook

1. recognize the importance of a lab notebook.

Maintaining detailed documentation in a lab notebook allows researchers to keep track of their experiments and generation of data. This detailed documentation helps you communicate about your research with others in the lab, and serves as a basis for preparing publications. It also provides a lasting record for the lab that exists beyond your time in the lab. After graduate students leave the lab, sometimes it is necessary to go back to the results of older experiments. A complete and detailed notebook is essential, or all of the time, effort, and resources are lost.

2. Learn the note-keeping practices in your lab

When you enter a new lab, it is important to understand how the lab keeps notebooks and the expectations for documentation. Being conscientious about documentation will make you a better scientist. In some labs, the PI might routinely examine your notebook, while in other labs you may be expected to maintain a notebook, but it may not be regularly viewed by others. It is tempting to become relaxed in documentation if you think your notebook may not be reviewed. Avoid this temptation; documentation of your ideas and process will improve your ability to think critically about research. Further, even if the PI or lab members do not physically view your notebook, you will need to communicate with them about your experiments. This documentation is necessary to communicate effectively about your work.

3. Organize your lab notebook

Different labs use different formats; some use electronic notebooks while others handwritten notebooks. The contents of a good notebook include the purpose of the experiment, the details of the experimental procedure, the data, and thoughts about the results. To effectively document your experiment, there are 5 critical questions that the information you record should be able to answer.

• Why I am doing this experiment? (purpose)
• What did I do to perform the experiment? (protocol)
• What are the results of what I did? (data, graphs)
• What do I think about the results?
• What do I think are the next steps?

We also recommend a table of contents. It will make the information more useful to you and the lab in the future. The table of contents should list the title of the experiment, the date(s) it was performed, and the page numbers on which it is recorded. Also, make sure that you write clearly and provide a legend or explanation of any shorthand or non-standard abbreviation you use. Often labs will have a combination of written lab notebooks and electronic data. It is important to reference where electronic data are located that go with each experiment. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to understand what you did and where to find all the data (electronic and hard copy) that accompanies your experiment.

Keeping a lab notebook becomes easier with practice. It can be thought of almost like journaling about your experiment. Sometimes people think of it as just a place to paste their protocol and a graph or data. We strongly encourage you to include your thoughts about why you made the decisions you made when conducting the experiment and to document your thoughts about next steps.

4. Commit to doing it the right way

A common reason to become lax in documentation is feeling rushed for time. Although documentation takes time, it saves time in the long-run and fosters good science. Without good notes, you will waste time trying to recall precisely what you did, reproduce your findings, and remember what you thought would be important next steps. The lab notebook helps you think about your research critically and keep your thoughts together. It can also save you time later when writing up results for publication. Further, well-documented data will help you draft a cogent and rigorous dissertation.

Handle data responsibly

1. keep all data.

Data are the product of research. Data include raw data, processed data, analyzed data, figures, and tables. Many data today are electronic, but not all. Generating data requires a lot of time and resources and researchers must treat data with care. The first essential tip is to keep all data. Do not discard data just because the experiment did not turn out as expected. A lot of experiments do not turn out to yield publishable data, but the results are still important for informing next steps.

Always keep the original, raw data. That is, as you process and analyze data, always maintain an unprocessed version of the original data.

Universities and funding agencies have data retention policies. These policies specify the number of years beyond a grant that data must be kept. Some policies also indicate researchers need to retain original data that served as the basis for a publication for a certain number of years. Therefore, your data will be important well beyond your time in graduate school. Most labs require you to keep samples for reanalysis until a paper is published, then the analyzed data are enough. If you leave a lab before a paper is accepted for publication, you are responsible for ensuring your data and original samples are well documented for others to find and use.

2. Document all data

In addition to keeping all data, data must be well-organized and documented. This means that no matter the way you keep your data (e.g., electronic or in written lab notebooks), there is a clear guide—in your lab notebook, a binder, or on a lab hard drive—to finding the data for a particular experiment. For example, it must be clear which data produced a particular graph. Version control of data is also critical. Your documentation should include “metadata” (data about your data) that tracks versions of the data. For example, as you edit data for a table, you should save separate versions of the tables, name the files sequentially, and note the changes that were made to each version.

3. Backup your data

You should backup electronic data regularly. Ideally, your lab has a shared server or cloud storage to backup data. If you are supposed to put your data there, make sure you do it! When you leave the lab, it must be possible to find your data.

4. Perform data analysis honestly and competently

Inappropriate use of statistics is a major concern in the scientific community, as the results and conclusions will be misleading if done incorrectly ( DeMets, 1999 ). Some practices are clearly an abuse of statistics, while other inappropriate practices stem from lack of knowledge. For example, a practice called “p-hacking” describes when researchers “collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant” ( Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015 ). In addition to avoiding such misbehavior, it is essential to be proficient with statistics to ensure you do statistical procedures appropriately. Learning statistical procedures and analyzing data takes many years of practice, and your statistics courses may only cover the basics. You will need to know when to consult others for help. In addition to consulting members in your lab or your PI, your university may have statistical experts who can provide consultations.

5. Master pressure to obtain favored results

When you conduct an experiment, the results are the results. As a beginning researcher, it is important to be prepared to manage the frustration of experiments not turning out as expected. It is also important to manage the real or perceived pressure to produce favored results. Investigators can become wedded to a hypothesis, and they can have a difficult time accepting the results. Sometimes you may feel this pressure coming from yourself; for example, if you want to please your PI, or if you want to get results for a certain publication. It is important to always follow the data no matter where it leads.

If you do feel pressure, this situation can be uncomfortable and stressful. If you have been meticulous and followed the above recommendations, this can be one great safeguard. You will be better able to confidently communicate your results to the PI because of your detailed documentation, and you will be more confident in your procedures if the possibility of error is suggested. Typically, with enough evidence that the unexpected results are real, the PI will concede. We recommend seeking the support of friends or colleagues to vent and cope with stress. In the rare case that the PI does not relent, you could turn to an advisor outside the lab if you need advice about how to proceed. They can help you look at the data objectively and also help you think about the interpersonal aspects of navigating this situation.

6. Communicate about your data in the lab

A critical element of reproducible research is communication in the lab. Ideally, there are weekly or bi-weekly meetings to discuss data. You need to develop your communication skills for writing and speaking about data. Often you and your labmates will discuss experimental issues and results informally during the course of daily work. This is an excellent way to hone critical thinking and communication skills about data.

Scenario 1 – The Protocol is Not Working

At the beginning of a rotation during their first year, a graduate student is handed a lab notebook and a pen and is told to keep track of their work. There does not appear to be a specific format to follow. There are standard lab protocols that everyone follows, but minor tweaks to the protocols do not seem to be tracked from experiment to experiment in the standard lab protocol nor in other lab notebooks. After two weeks of trying to follow one of the standard lab protocols, the student still cannot get the experiment to work. The student has included the appropriate positive and negative controls which are failing, making the experiment uninterpretable. After asking others in the lab for help, the graduate student learns that no one currently in the lab has performed this particular experiment. The former lab member who had performed the experiment only lists the standard protocol in their lab notebook.

How should the graduate student start to solve the problem?

Speaking to the PI would be the next logical step. As a first-year student in a lab rotation, the PI should expect this type of situation and provide additional troubleshooting guidance. It is possible that the PI may want to see how the new graduate student thinks critically and handles adversity in the lab. Rather than giving an answer, the PI might ask the student to work through the problem. The PI should give guidance, but it may not be an immediate fix for the problem. If the PI’s suggestions fail to correct the problem, asking a labmate or the PI for the contact information of the former lab member who most recently performed the experiment would be a reasonable next step. The graduate student’s conversations with the PI and labmates in this situation will help them learn a lot about how the people in the lab interact.

Most of the answers for these types of problems will require you as a graduate student to take the initiative to answer. They will require your effort and ingenuity to talk to other lab members, other labs at the university, and even scour the literature for alternatives. While labs have standard protocols, there are multiple ways to do many experiments, and working out an alternative will teach you more than when everything works. Having to troubleshoot problems will result in better standard protocols in the lab and better science.

HOW TO BE A RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR

Researchers communicate their findings via peer-reviewed publications, and publications are important for advancing in a research career. Many graduate students will first author or co-author publications in graduate school. For good advice on how to write a research manuscript, consult the Current Protocols article “How to write a research manuscript” ( Frank, 2018 ). We focus on the issues of assigning authors and reporting your findings responsibly. First, we describe some important basics: journal impact factors, predatory journals, and peer review.

What are journal impact factors?

It is helpful to understand journal impact factors. There is criticism about an overemphasis on impact factors for evaluating the quality or importance of researchers’ work ( DePellegrin & Johnston, 2015 ), but they remain common for this purpose. Journal impact factors reflect the average number of times articles in a journal were cited in the last two years. Higher impact factors place journals at a higher rank. Approximately 2% of journals have an impact factor of 10 or higher. For example, Cell, Science, and Nature have impact factors of approximately 39, 42, and 43, respectively. Journals can be great journals but have lower impact factors; often this is because they focus on a smaller specialty field. For example, Journal of Immunology and Oncogene are respected journals, but their impact factors are about 4 and 7, respectively.

Research trainees often want to publish in journals with the highest possible impact factor because they expect this to be viewed favorably when applying to future positions. We encourage you to bear in mind that many different journals publish excellent science and focus on publishing where your work will reach the desired audience. Also, keep in mind that while a high impact factor can direct you to respectable, high-impact science, it does not guarantee that the science in the paper is good or even correct. You must critically evaluate all papers you read no matter the impact factor.

What are predatory journals?

Predatory journals have flourished over the past few years as publishing science has moved online. An international panel defined predatory journals as follows ( Grudniewicz et al., 2019 ):

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices. (p. 211)

Often young researchers receive emails soliciting them to submit their work to a journal. There are typically small fees (around $99 US) requested but these fees will be much lower than open access fees of reputable journals (often around $2000 US). A warning sign of a predatory journal is outlandish promises, such as 24-hour peer review or immediate publication. You can find a list of predatory journals created by a postdoc in Europe at BeallsList.net ( “Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers,” 2020 ).

What is peer review?

Peer reviewers are other scientists who have the expertise to evaluate a manuscript. Typically 2 or 3 reviewers evaluate a manuscript. First, an editor performs an initial screen of the manuscript to ensure its appropriateness for the journal and that it meets basic quality standards. At this stage, an editor can decide to reject the manuscript and not send it to review. Not sending a paper for peer review is common in the highest impact journals that receive more submissions per year than can be reviewed and published. For average-impact journals and specialty journals, typically your paper will be sent for peer review.

In general, peer review focuses on three aspects of a manuscript: research design and methods, validity of the data and conclusions, and significance. Peer reviewers assess the merit and rigor of the research design and methodology, and they evaluate the overall validity of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. Essentially, reviewers want to ensure that the data support the claims. Additionally, reviewers evaluate the overall significance, or contribution, of the findings, which involves the novelty of the research and the likelihood that the findings will advance the field. Significance standards vary between journals. Some journals are open to publishing findings that are incremental advancements in a field, while others want to publish only what they deem as major advancements. This feature can distinguish the highest impact journals which seek the most significant advancements and other journals that tend to consider a broader range of work as long as it is scientifically sound. It is important to keep in mind that determining at the stage of review and publication whether a paper is “high impact” is quite subjective. In reality, this can only really be determined in retrospect.

The key ethical issues in peer review are fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality ( Shamoo & Resnik, 2015 ). Peer reviewers are to evaluate the manuscript on its merits and not based on biases related to the authors or the science itself. If reviewers have a conflict of interest, this should be disclosed to the editor. Confidentiality of peer review means that the reviewers should keep private the information; they should not share the information with others or use it to their benefit. Reviewers can ultimately recommend that the manuscript is rejected, revised, and resubmitted (major or minor revisions), or accepted. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a judgment about rejecting, accepting, or requesting a revision. Sometimes PIs will ask experienced graduate students to assist with peer reviewing a manuscript. This is a good learning opportunity. The PI should disclose to the editor that they included a trainee in preparing the review.

Assign authorship fairly

Authorship gives credit to the people who contributed to the research. This includes thinking of the ideas, designing and performing experiments, interpreting the results, and writing the paper. Two key questions regarding authorship include: 1 - Who will be an author? 2 - What will be the order in which authors are listed? These seem simple on the surface but can get quite complex.

1. Know authorship guidelines

Authorship guidelines published by journals, professional societies, and universities communicate key principles of authorship and standards for earning authorship. The core ethical principle of assigning authorship is fairness in who receives credit for the work. The people who contributed to the work should get credit for it. This seems simply enough, but determining authorship can (and often does) create conflict.

Many universities have authorship guidelines, and you should know the policies at your university. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides four criteria for determining who should be an author ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2020 ). These criteria indicate that an author should do all of the following: 1) make “substantial contributions” to the development of the idea or research design, or to acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting the data, 2) write the manuscript or revise it a substantive way, 3) give approval of the final manuscript (i.e., before it is submitted for review, and after it is revised, if necessary), and 4) agree to be responsible for any questions about the accuracy or integrity of the research.

Several types of authorship violate these guidelines and should be avoided. Guest authorship is when respected researchers are added out of appreciation, or to have the manuscript be perceived more favorably to get it published or increase its impact. Gift authorship is giving authorship to reward an individual, or as a favor. Ghost authorship is when someone made significant contributions to the paper but is not listed as an author. To increase transparency, some journals require authors to indicate how each individual contributed to the research and manuscript.

2. Apply the guidelines

Conflicts often arise from disagreements about how much people contributed to the research and whether those contributions merit authorship. The best approach is an open, honest, and ongoing discussion about authorship, which we discuss in #3 below. To have effective, informed conversations about authorship, you must understand how to apply the guidelines to your specific situation. The following is a simple rule of thumb that indicates there are three components of authorship. We do not list giving final approval of the manuscript and agreeing to be accountable, but we do consider these essentials of authorship.

• Thinking – this means contributing to the ideas leading to the hypothesis of the work, designing experiments to address the hypothesis, and/or analyzing the results in the larger context of the literature in the field.
• Doing – this means performing and analyzing the experiments.
• Writing – this means editing a draft, or writing the entire paper. The first author often writes the entire first draft.

In our experience, a first author would typically do all three. They also usually coordinate the writing and editing process. Co-authors are typically very involved in at least two of the three, and are somewhat involved in the other. The PI, who oversees and contributes to all three, is often the last, or “senior author.” The “senior author” is typically the “corresponding author”—the person listed as the individual to contact about the paper. The other co-authors are listed between the first and senior author either alphabetically, or more commonly, in order from the largest to smallest contribution.

Problems in assigning authorship typically arise due to people’s interpretations of #1 (thinking) and #2 (doing)—what and how much each individual contributed to a project’s design, execution, and analysis. Different fields or PIs may have their own slight variations on these guidelines. The potential conflicts associated with assigning authorship lead to the most common recommendation for responsibly assigning authorship: discuss authorship expectations early and revisit them during the project.

3. Discuss authorship with your collaborators

Publications are important for career advancement, so you can see why people might be worried about fairness in assigning authorship. If the problem arises from a lack of a shared understanding about contributions to the research, the only way to clarify this is an open discussion. This discussion should ideally take place very early at the beginning of a project, and should be ongoing. Hopefully you work in a laboratory that makes these discussions a natural part of the research process; this makes it much easier to understand the expectations upfront.

We encourage you to speak up about your interest in making a contribution that would merit authorship, especially if you want to earn first authorship. Sometimes norms about authoring papers in a lab make it clear you are expected to first and co-author publications, but it is best to communicate your interest in earning authorship. If the project is not yours, but you wish to collaborate, you can inquire what you may be able to contribute that would merit authorship.

If it is not a norm in your lab to discuss authorship throughout the life of projects, then as a graduate student you may feel reluctant to speak up. You could initiate a conversation with a more senior graduate student, a postdoc, or your PI, depending on the dynamics in the group. You could ask generally about how the lab approaches assignment of authorship, but discussing a specific project and paper may be best. It may feel awkward to ask, but asking early is less uncomfortable than waiting until the end of the project. If the group is already drafting a manuscript and you are told that your contribution is insufficient for authorship, this situation is much more discouraging than if you had asked earlier about what is expected to earn authorship.

How to report findings responsibly

The most significant responsibility of authors is to present their research accurately and honestly. Deliberately presenting misleading information is clearly unethical, but there are significant judgment calls about how to present your research findings. For example, an author can mislead by overstating the conclusions given what the data support.

1. Commit to presenting your findings honestly

Any good scientific manuscript writer will tell you that you need to “tell a good story.” This means that your paper is organized and framed to draw the reader into the research and convince them of the importance of the findings. But, this story must be sound and justified by the data. Other authors are presenting their findings in the best, most “publishable” light, so it is a balancing act to be persuasive but also responsible in presenting your findings in a trustworthy manner. To present your findings honestly, you must be conscious of how you interpret your data and present your conclusions so that they are accurate and not overstated.

One misbehavior known as “HARKing,” Hypothesis After the Results are Known, occurs when hypotheses are created after seeing the results of an experiment, but they are presented as if they were defined prior to collecting the data ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). This practice should be avoided. HARKing may be driven, in part, by a concern in scientific publishing known as publication bias. This bias is a preference that reviewers, editors, and researchers have for papers describing positive findings instead of negative findings ( Carroll, Toumpakari, Johnson, & Betts, 2017 ). This preference can lead to manipulating one’s practices, such as by HARKing, so that positive findings can be reported.

It is important to note that in addition to avoiding misbehaviors such as HARKing, all researchers are susceptible to a number of more subtle traps in judgment. Even the most well-intentioned researcher may jump to conclusions, discount alternative explanations, or accept results that seem correct without further scrutiny ( Nuzzo, 2015 ). Therefore, researchers must not only commit to presenting their findings honestly but consider how they can counteract such traps by slowing down and increasing their skepticism towards their findings.

2. Provide an appropriate amount of detail

Providing enough detail in a manuscript can be a challenge with the word limits imposed by most journals. Therefore, you will need to determine what details to include and which to exclude, or potentially include in the supplemental materials. Methods sections can be long and are often the first to be shortened, but complete methods are important for others to evaluate the research and to repeat the methods in other studies. Even more significant is making decisions about what experimental data to include and potentially exclude from the manuscript. Researchers must determine what data is required to create a complete scientific story that supports the central hypothesis of the paper. On the other hand, it is not necessary or helpful to include so much data in the manuscript, or in supplemental material, that the central point of the paper is difficult to discern. It is a tricky balance.

3. Follow proper citation practices

Of course, responsible authorship requires avoiding plagiarism. Many researchers think that plagiarism is not a concern for them because they assume it is always done intentionally by “copying and pasting” someone else’s words and claiming them as your own. Sometimes poor writing practices, such as taking notes from references without distinguishing between direct quotes and paraphrased material, can lead to including material that is not quoted properly. More broadly, proper citation practices include accurately and completely referencing prior studies to provide appropriate context for your manuscript.

4. Attend to the other important details

The journal will require several pieces of additional information, such as disclosure of sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest. Typically, graduate students do not have relationships that constitute conflicts of interest, but a PI who is a co-author may. In submitting a manuscript, also make sure to acknowledge individuals not listed as authors but who contributed to the work.

5. Share data and promote transparency

Data sharing is a key facet of promoting transparency in science ( Nosek et al., 2015 ). It will be important to know the expectations of the journals in which you wish to publish. Many top journals now require data sharing; for example, sharing your data files in an online repository so others have access to the data for secondary use. Funding agencies like NIH also increasingly require data sharing. To further foster transparency and public trust in research, researchers must deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts that report on research funded by NIH to PubMed Central. PubMed makes biomedical and life science research publicly accessible in a free, online database.

Scenario 2 – Authors In Conflict

To prepare a manuscript for publication, a postdoc’s data is added to a graduate student’s thesis project. After working together to combine the data and write the paper, the postdoc requests co-first authorship on the paper. The graduate student balks at this request on the basis that it is their thesis project. In a weekly meeting with the lab’s PI to discuss the status of the paper, the graduate student states that they should divide the data between the authors as a way to prove that the graduate student should be the sole first author. The PI agrees to this attempt to quantify how much data each person contributed to the manuscript. All parties agree the writing and thinking were equally shared between them. After this assessment, the graduate student sees that the postdoc actually contributed more than half of the data presented in the paper. The graduate student and a second graduate student contributed the remaining data; this means the graduate student contributed much less than half of the data in the paper. However, the graduate student is still adamant that they must be the sole first author of the paper because it is their thesis project.

Is the graduate student correct in insisting that it is their project, so they are entitled to be the sole first author?

Co-first authorship became popular about 10 years ago as a way to acknowledge shared contributions to a paper in which authors worked together and contributed equally. If the postdoc contributed half of the data and worked with the graduate student to combine their interpretations and write the first draft of the paper, then the postdoc did make a substantial contribution. If the graduate student wrote much of the first draft of the paper, contributed significantly to the second half of data, and played a major role in the thesis concept and design, this is also a major contribution. We summarized authorship requirements as contributing to thinking, doing, and writing, and we noted that a first author usually contributes to all of these. The graduate student has met all 3 elements to claim first authorship. However, it appears that the postdoc has also met these 3 requirements. Thus, it is at least reasonable for the postdoc to ask about co-first authorship.

The best way to move forward is to discuss their perspectives openly. Both the graduate student and postdoc want first authorship on papers to advance their careers. The postdoc feels they contributed more to the overall concept and design than the graduate student is recognizing, and the postdoc did contribute half of the data. This is likely frustrating and upsetting for the postdoc. On the other hand, perhaps the postdoc is forgetting how much a thesis becomes like “your baby,” so to speak. The work is the graduate student’s thesis, so it is easy to see why the graduate student would feel a sense of ownership of it. Given this fact, it may be hard for the graduate student to accept the idea that they would share first-author recognition for the work. Yet, the graduate student should consider that the manuscript would not be possible without the postdoc’s contribution. Further, if the postdoc was truly being unreasonable, then the postdoc could make the case for sole first authorship based on contributing the most data to the paper, in addition to contributing ideas and writing the paper. The graduate student should consider that the postdoc may be suggesting co-first authorship in good faith.

As with any interpersonal conflict, clear communication is key. While it might be temporarily uncomfortable to voice their views and address this disagreement, it is critical to avoiding permanent damage to their working relationship. The pair should consider each other’s perspectives and potential alternatives. For example, if the graduate student is first author and the postdoc second, at a minimum they could include an author note in the manuscript that describes the contribution of each author. This would make it clear the scope of the postdoc’s contribution, if they decided not to go with co-first authorship. Also, the graduate student should consider their assumptions about co-first authorship. Maybe they assume it makes it appear they contributed less, but instead, perhaps co-first authorship highlights their collaborative approach to science. Collaboration is a desirable quality many (although arguably not all) research organizations look for when they are hiring.

They will also need to speak with others for advice. The pair should definitely speak with the PI who could provide input about how these cases have been handled in the past. Ultimately, if they cannot reach an agreement, the PI, who is likely to be the last or “senior” author, may make the final decision. They should also speak to the other graduate student who is an author.

If either individual is upset with the situation, they will want to discuss it when they have had time to cool down. This might mean taking a day before discussing, or speaking with someone outside of the lab for support. Ideally, all authors on this paper would have initiated this conversation earlier, and the standards in the lab for first authorship would be discussed routinely. Clear communication may have avoided the conflict.

HOW TO USE DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES TO NAVIGATE CHALLENGES

We have provided advice on some specific challenges you might encounter in research. This final section covers our overarching recommendation that you adopt a set of ethical decision-making strategies. These strategies help researchers address challenges by helping them think through a problem and possible alternatives ( McIntosh et al., 2020 ). The strategies encourage you to gather information, examine possible outcomes, consider your assumptions, and address emotional reactions before acting. They are especially helpful when you are uncertain how to proceed, face a new problem, or when the consequences of a decision could negatively impact you or others. The strategies also help people be honest with themselves, such as when they are discounting important factors or have competing goals, by encouraging them to identify outside perspectives and test their motivations. You can remember the strategies using the acronym SMART .

1. S eek Help

Obtain input from others who can be objective and that you trust. They can assist you with assessing the situation, predicting possible outcomes, and identifying potential options. They can also provide you with support. Individuals to consult may be peers, other faculty, or people in your personal life. It is important that you trust the people you talk with, but it is also good when they challenge your perspective, or encourage you to think in a new way about a problem. Keep in mind that people such as program directors and university ombudsmen are often available for confidential, objective advice.

2. M anage Emotions

Consider your emotional reaction to the situation and how it might influence your assessment of the situation, and your potential decisions and actions. In particular, identify negative emotions, like frustration, anxiety, fear, and anger, as they particularly tend to diminish decision-making and the quality of interactions with others. Take time to address these emotions before acting, for example, by exercising, listening to music, or simply taking a day before responding.

3. A nticipate Consequences

Think about how the situation could turn out. This includes for you, for the research team, and anyone else involved. Consider the short, middle-term, and longer-term impacts of the problem and your potential approach to addressing the situation. Ideally, it is possible to identify win-win outcomes. Often, however, in tough professional situations, you may need to select the best option from among several that are not ideal.

4. R ecognize Rules and Context

Determine if any ethical principles, professional policies, or rules apply that might help guide your choices. For instance, if the problem involves an authorship dispute, consider the authorship guidelines that apply. Recognizing the context means considering the situational factors that could impact your options and how you proceed. For example, factors such as the reality that ultimately the PI may have the final decision about authorship.

5. T est Assumptions and Motives

Examine your beliefs about the situation and whether any of your thoughts may not be justified. This includes critically examining the personal motivations and goals that are driving your interpretation of the problem and thoughts about how to resolve it.

These strategies do not have to be engaged in order, and they are interrelated. For example, seeking help can help you manage emotions, test assumptions, and anticipate consequences. Go back to the scenarios and our advice throughout this article, and you will see many of our suggestions align with these strategies. Practice applying SMART strategies when you encounter a problem and they will become more natural.

Learning practices for responsible research will be the foundation for your success in graduate school and your career. We encourage you to be reflective and intentional as you learn and hope that our advice helps you along the way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Antes, K01HG008990) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345).

LITERATURE CITED

• Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 853–860. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Brown RP, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Connelly S, & Devenport LD (2007). Personality and Ethical Decision-Making in Research: The Role of Perceptions of Self and Others . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 2 ( 4 ), 15–34. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, English T, Baldwin KA, & DuBois JM (2018). The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers’ Perceptions of Rules in Science . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 2 ), 361–391. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019a). The Lab Management Practices of “Research Exemplars” that Foster Research Rigor and Regulatory Compliance: A Qualitative Study of Successful Principal Investigators . PloS One , 14 ( 4 ), e0214595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214595 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019b). Leading for Research Excellence and Integrity: A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationship-Building Practices of Exemplary Principal Investigators . Accountability in Research , 26 ( 3 ), 198–226. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1611429 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, & Maggi LB Jr. (2021). How to Navigate Trainee-Mentor Relationships and Interpersonal Dynamics in the Lab . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asplund M, & Welle CG (2018). Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back . Neuron , 99 ( 4 ), 635–639. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker M (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? Nature , 533 , 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba LA (2016). The Hard Road to Reproducibility . Science , 354 ( 6308 ), 142. doi: 10.1126/science.354.6308.142 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers . (2020). Retrieved from https://beallslist.net/#update [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, & Betts JA (2017). The Perceived Feasibility of Methods to Reduce Publication Bias . PloS One , 12 ( 10 ), e0186472–e0186472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chappell B (2019). Duke Whistleblower Gets More Than $33 Million in Research Fraud Settlement . NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706604033/duke-whistleblower-gets-more-than-33-million-in-research-fraud-settlement [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, & Diaz SR (2007). Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 ( 4 ), 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeMets DL (1999). Statistics and Ethics in Medical Research . Science and Engineering Ethics , 5 ( 1 ), 97–117. doi: 10.1007/s11948-999-0059-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• DePellegrin TA, & Johnston M (2015). An Arbitrary Line in the Sand: Rising Scientists Confront the Impact Factor . Genetics , 201 ( 3 ), 811–813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, & Rubbelke T (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing . Account Res , 20 ( 5–6 ), 320–338. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, & Antes AL (2018). Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity . Academic Medicine , 93 ( 4 ), 550–555. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Else H (2018). Does Science have a Bullying Problem? Nature , 563 , 616–618. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07532-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, & Grady C (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical ? Journal of the American Medical Association , 283 ( 20 ), 2701–2711. doi:jsc90374 [pii] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, & Vanderford NL (2018). Evidence for a Mental Health Crisis in Graduate Education . Nature Biotechnology , 36 ( 3 ), 282–284. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank DJ (2018). How to Write a Research Manuscript . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques , 16 ( 1 ), e20. doi: 10.1002/cpet.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN, Fanelli D, & Ioannidis JPA (2016). What Does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine , 8 ( 341 ), 341ps312. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, … Lalu MM (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence . Nature , 576 ( 7786 ), 210–212. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, & Jennions MD (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science . PLoS Biology , 13 ( 3 ), e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, & McFarland DA (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 17 ), 9284. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors . Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
• Keith-Spiegel P, Sieber J, & Koocher GP (2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide . Retrieved from http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/0/20883041/assets/RRW_11-10.pdf
• McIntosh T, Antes AL, & DuBois JM (2020). Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: A Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making . Journal of Academic Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09369-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers LC, Brown AM, Moneta-Koehler L, & Chalkley R (2018). Survey of Checkpoints along the Pathway to Diverse Biomedical Research Faculty . PloS One , 13 ( 1 ), e0190606–e0190606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, … Ioannidis JPA (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science . Nature Human Behaviour , 1 ( 1 ), 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Science. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research . Washington DC: National Academics Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018a). An American Crisis: The Growing Absence of Black Men in Medicine and Science: Proceedings of a Joint Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018b). Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine : National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institutes of Health. (2009). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research . NOT-OD-10-019 . Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html
• National Science Foundation. (2017). Important Notice No. 140 Training in Responsible Conduct of Research – A Reminder of the NSF Requirement . Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/issuances/in140.jsp
• No Place for Bullies in Science. (2018). Nature , 559 ( 7713 ), 151. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05683-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris D, Dirnagl U, Zigmond MJ, Thompson-Peer K, & Chow TT (2018). Health Tips for Research Groups . Nature , 557 , 302–304. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05146-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, … Yarkoni T (2015). Scientific Standards . Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science , 348 ( 6242 ), 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuzzo R (2015). How Scientists Fool Themselves - and How They Can Stop . Nature , 526 , 182–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor A (2018). More Evidence that Nutrition Studies Don’t Always Add Up . The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Park A (2012). Great Science Frauds . Time. Retrieved from https://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Plemmons DK, Baranski EN, Harp K, Lo DD, Soderberg CK, Errington TM, … Esterling KM (2020). A Randomized Trial of a Lab-embedded Discourse Intervention to Improve Research Ethics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 3 ), 1389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917848117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First. (2018). Nature , 557 ( 7705 ), 279–280. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05159-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct . (2019). ( 570 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01727-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnik DB (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust . Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 ( 3 ), 399–409. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roper RL (2019). Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews , 83 ( 3 ), e00018–00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00018-19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamoo AE, & Resnik DB (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steneck NH (2007). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (Updated ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winchester C (2018). Give Every Paper a Read for Reproducibility . Nature , 557 , 281. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05140-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

An official website of the United States Government

• Kreyòl ayisyen
• Search Toggle search Search Include Historical Content - Any - No Include Historical Content - Any - No Search
• Menu Toggle menu
• INFORMATION FOR…
• Individuals
• Business & Self Employed
• Charities and Nonprofits
• International Taxpayers
• Federal State and Local Governments
• Indian Tribal Governments
• Tax Exempt Bonds
• FILING FOR INDIVIDUALS
• How to File
• When to File
• Where to File
• Update Your Information
• Get Your Tax Record
• Apply for an Employer ID Number (EIN)
• Check Your Amended Return Status
• Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN)
• File Your Taxes for Free
• Bank Account (Direct Pay)
• Payment Plan (Installment Agreement)
• Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS)
• Your Online Account
• Tax Withholding Estimator
• Estimated Taxes
• Where's My Refund
• What to Expect
• Direct Deposit
• Reduced Refunds
• Amend Return

Credits & Deductions

• INFORMATION FOR...
• Businesses & Self-Employed
• Earned Income Credit (EITC)
• Child Tax Credit
• Clean Energy and Vehicle Credits
• Standard Deduction
• Retirement Plans

Forms & Instructions

• POPULAR FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
• Form 1040 Instructions
• Form 4506-T
• POPULAR FOR TAX PROS
• Form 1040-X
• Circular 230

Determining an Individual’s Tax Residency Status

More in file.

• Businesses and Self-Employed
• Individuals - International
• Businesses - International
• Governmental Liaisons
• Federal State Local Governments

If you are not a U.S. citizen, you are considered a nonresident of the United States for U.S. tax purposes  unless you meet one of two tests. You are a resident   of the United States for tax purposes if you meet either the green card test or the substantial presence test for the calendar year (January 1 – December 31).

Certain rules exist for determining your residency starting and ending dates .

In some cases, you are allowed to make elections which override the green card test and the substantial presence test, as follows:

• First-Year Choice To Be Treated as a Resident    
• Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident   
• Closer Connection To a Foreign Country    
• Tax Treaties

You can be both a nonresident and a resident for U.S. tax purposes during the same tax year. This usually occurs in the year you arrive or depart from the United States. If so, you need to file a dual-status income tax return .

If you are a U.S. resident for tax purposes and need to establish your U.S. residency for the purpose of claiming a tax treaty benefit with a foreign country, refer to Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes .

Individuals Topics

Online tools & updates.

•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  Linkedin

Juneteenth: What to know about the historical celebration that's now a federal holiday

On june 19, 1865 slaves in galveston, texas were given the news that they were freed by president abraham lincoln. now, the day is a holiday that celebrates the "second independence day" in america..

Three years after it was made a federal holiday , Juneteenth 2024 marks a day of celebration as well as education.

The federal holiday known as “Second Independence Day,” marks the day the last African American slaves were notified that they had been freed from their masters, the National Museum of African American History and Culture said.

Dr. Tim Goler, a professor of urban affairs and sociology courses and director of research for the Center for African American Public Policy at Norfolk State University, told USA TODAY that Juneteenth or "Freedom Day" is a day that shows the "beauty of our culture" that everyone should participate in.

The origins of Juneteenth date back to June 19, 1865 – more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation - when the Union Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of enslaved African Americans, Goler said.

“This delay and the enforcement of the emancipation in Texas was due to a lack of enforcement until this general arrived," Goler said. "Then Juneteenth thus became this kind of powerful symbol of freedom and the long struggle for civil rights."

The Juneteenth National Independence Day A ct was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in June 2021. The bill was signed by President Joe Biden on June 17, 2021, which officially made the day a federal holiday.

Here's what you need to know about Juneteenth.

An African American holiday: Predating Juneteenth was nearly lost to history. It's back.

Black History, Juneteenth becoming more cemented in fabric of US

Although Juneteenth is now becoming a part of the conversation regarding Black History, there was a time when Black History was not widely discussed within the educational system, especially for historians, said Dr. Alan Singer, a professor of teaching, learning and technology at Hofstra University who writes about the history of slavery and racism.

“I didn't learn it (until) I was an adult, really (in the) 1990s, when as a teacher, I started studying more, so I (could) incorporate it into my lessons,” he said. “I went to City College in the 1960s and they had first introduced a course called ‘American Negro History’ and that was the first time I had learned about any of these things. I took the course because I became a political activist while at City College and I needed to know more about the African American civil rights struggles.”

Singer also adds that he attended high school during the Civil Rights Movement and was never taught about Black History. To change that, he decided to educate himself more to properly teach his students.

“I just felt a heavy responsibility as a teacher to really present a much more accurate picture of the history of the United States,” he said.

Goler adds that Juneteenth has been recognized for years within the Black community and history. Now, the day has become more publicly known.

"In recent years, Juneteenth has gained a much wider recognition. It's only been since 2021 that it became that designated as a federal holiday," he said. "Many Black people and Black communities around the country have celebrated Juneteenth. It's just becoming much more wider and much more visible now."

Commercialization of Juneteenth

Since Juneteenth has been declared a federal holiday, many retailers have unveiled Juneteenth attire through clothing, footwear, hats and other merchandise.

"The question is, 'who benefits from the commercialization of Juneteenth?' I’d definitely like to see more African American (and) more Black businesses benefit," Goler said. "The trend of commercialization, we risk the overshadowing of the historical context, and the ongoing struggle for racial equality that Juneteenth represents."

Singer hopes that companies that are selling Juneteenth products are also advocating for more inclusivity.

“What I'm arguing is that what we need to do is to use a day like Juneteenth as a launching pad to build a more just society,” he said. “It should not just be about the past, it has to be about the future.”

Goler hopes that the holiday will bring everyone together but also educate them about this important day in Black History.

"I think as we observe Juneteenth, it's important to focus on the education, reflection, the community engagement aspect and really ensure that the day remains of a pungent reminder of our continued and enduring fight for freedom and justice," he said.

Ahjané Forbes is a reporter on the National Trending Team at USA TODAY. Ahjané covers breaking news, car recalls, crime, health, lottery and public policy stories. Email her at  [email protected] . Follow her on  Instagram ,  Threads  and  X (Twitter) .

Money blog: Aldi tactic 'forces Tesco to pull products from sales campaign'

The Money blog brings you personal finance and consumer news, plus all the latest on the economy. Let us know your thoughts on any of the stories we're covering in the comments box below.

Thursday 20 June 2024 20:00, UK

• Interest rate held at 16-year high in blow for borrowers
• 'Obstinate' Bank 'unwilling to take action'
• Ian King analysis:  Why door remains open to cut in August - though politics could get in the way
• Aldi tactic forces Tesco 'to pull products from sales campaign'
• Barclays ditching major perks - but customers will still pay £5
• Savings queen shares top three tips for savers right now

Essential reads

• Watch : Ed Conway breaks down inflation numbers - and shows chart that tells very different story
• 'One guy wanted to rent my room for a few hours to meet a friend...' What I learnt from putting my home on Airbnb
• Women in Business : 'How I went from mum with no qualifications to owner of big law firm'
• Holiday money - where to buy it, how to avoid fees and one thing you must not do
• Best of the Money blog - an archive

Ask a question or make a comment

Aldi has undercut Tesco on some of its rival's claimed price matches, according to The Grocer . 

As a result of Aldi dropping its prices, Tesco has pulled certain products from its campaign, according to the digital magazine, and in some cases it is rendering the supermarket's price match claims incorrect.

According to The Grocer, two variants of Aldi's Lunex Ultra sanitary towels (Night and Long) were "price matched" at 45p by Tesco this week, while Aldi had reduced them to 42p in its weekly permanent price drops.

In a similar vein, the magazine said Aldi's Bon Appetit Pains Au Chocolat eight-pack was price matched by Tesco at £1.35 on 6 June - before being cut to £1.29 at Aldi.

Tesco's equivalent had disappeared from Tesco's campaign by 13 June. 

"Our customers know that only one supermarket offers Aldi prices on every product and that's Aldi," an Aldi spokesman told The Grocer. 

"Other supermarkets just can't match us on that." 

Tesco said prices were checked twice-weekly and the most recent check on the Lunex sanitary towels found them to be 45p in more than half of Aldi stores surveyed. 

A spokesman told The Grocer products included may vary by week, with some removed and others added. 

By Daniel Binns, business reporter

Sainsbury's is to sell its banking business to NatWest.

The agreement could see NatWest take on around one million customer accounts, as well as £1.4bn of unsecured personal loans, £1.1bn of credit card balances and £2.6bn of customer deposits.

The deal is expected to be completed in the first half of 2025.

Sainsbury's said customers would "not need to take any action" and said there would be no immediate changes to their terms and conditions.

It comes after the supermarket giant announced in January it was winding down its banking division to focus on the retail side of its business.

Simon Roberts, the chief executive of Sainsbury's, said: "Today's news means we will focus all our time and resources going forward on growing our core retail business, delivering great quality and value, week in week out."

NatWest boss Paul Thwaite added: "This transaction is a great opportunity to accelerate the growth of our retail banking business at attractive returns, in line with our strategic priorities."

The sale does not include Sainsbury's Bank's commission income businesses, such as insurance, cash points and travel money.

Argos Financial Services is also not included.

An English rosé has been celebrated as one of the 50 best wines in the world.

Chapel Down's Rosé Brut won one of the 50 best in show medals at the Decanter World Wine Awards - the first time a UK sparkling rosé has done so. 

The rosé, made in Kent, is a blend of chardonnay, pinot noir, pinot meunier, pinot blanc and early pinot noir. 

Josh Donaghay-Spire, head winemaker at Chapel Down, said: "We are over the moon. 

"It is recognition of the attention to detail and quality that we put into every bottle." 

He put the success down to the cooler maritime climate and chalk soils of Kent, which offered the wine the "freshness and crisp character that can't be made anywhere else". 

You can get a bottle for around £37.

If you want to a list of the most affordable rosés out there, check out Money reporter Emily Mee 's report here ...

More than 30% of UK shoppers have seen a theft take place in a shop in the past year, data from Retail Insight suggests.

A poll of more than 1,000 consumers also found the average shopper had witnessed four instances of theft in stores in London.

According to the Association of Convenience Stores, there was a 409% increase in shoplifting last year, to 5.6 million incidents.

"There's little doubt that shoplifting poses a challenging and costly issue for retailers, many of whom are already giving away margin to keep the cost of everyday foods as low as possible for customers amidst cost of living pressures," Paul Boyle, chief executive of Retail Insight, said.

A ballot is under way that could see Amazon recognise a trade union in the UK for the first time.

Workers will eventually vote on whether they want the union, GMB, to represent them.

GMB needs 40% of them to vote in its favour for Amazon to recognise it.

If the union succeeds, it would mean Amazon would negotiate with GMB leadership over on terms, pay and conditions for workers. 

Ballot papers will be sent out on 3 July, with workplace voting starting on 8 July, lasting for six days.

The result of the ballot is expected on 15 July.

Almost one in five workers have had no change in their pay since the start of the cost of living crisis, new research claims. 

Jobs site Indeed said its survey of 2,000 people also found that two in five revealed they were struggling to make ends meet.

One in five said their salary had not changed since 2021, while almost one in seven said their pay had fallen since then.

Jack Kennedy, senior economist at Indeed, said: "After grappling with the cost of living crisis for over two years, it's no surprise that wages are front of mind for voters.

"There's a clear call from the British people for the elected government to further ease financial pressures, and we'd expect this to remain front of mind for the public long after the winning party is decided."

Taylor Swift's shows in London will boost the economy by £300m, officials have claimed.

The US star will perform three gigs at London's Wembley Stadium this Friday, Saturday and Sunday - before returning to the venue in August for a further five dates.

The sold-out shows will be attended by a total of nearly 640,000 people.

The Greater London Authority estimates fans will spend an average of £471 a show, with many travelling from around the world or other parts of the country to watch.

The capital's mayor Sadiq Khan said he was "delighted" the 34-year-old was playing more shows in the city than anywhere else in the world during her Eras Tour.

The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee was never going to cut interest rates today. Not two weeks before a general election.

Cutting the cost of borrowing would have been perceived as highly political, potentially offering support to the government, even though some Conservative politicians, such as the former business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, sought to argue ahead of today's decision that not cutting Bank rate could equally be perceived as "a political decision against the government".

So it was no surprise to see the MPC maintain Bank rate at 5.25% or, indeed, for the composition of the vote, at 7-2, to remain unchanged from last time around, with uber-dove Swati Dhingra and Sir Dave Ramsden, again, outnumbered in voting for Bank rate to be cut to 5%.

The MPC also went out of its way to show how it is finely attuned to criticisms of bias one way or the other.

The minutes note: "The committee noted that the timing of the general election on 4 July was not relevant to its decision at this meeting, which would as usual be made on the basis of what was judged necessary to achieve the 2% inflation target sustainably in the medium term."

Why did the MPC vote to hold?

Leaving aside the politics, there were very good reasons why most of the MPC voted for no change today.

Chief among these was the fact that, although the headline rate of Consumer Prices Inflation in May returned to the Bank's target rate of 2% for the first time since July 2021, services inflation remains uncomfortably high at 5.7%. 

That will have raised alarm bells on the MPC about the risk of so-called "second round effects", whereby firms and workers respond to higher prices by themselves seeking to raise their prices or their wages and not least because services make up four-fifths of the UK economy.

The MPC minutes noted today that services inflation was "somewhat higher than projected" when the Bank published its most recent inflation report only last month.

The minutes added: "This strength in part reflected prices that are index-linked or regulated, which are typically changed only annually, and volatile components."

Inflation likely to rise again

The MPC is also very wary of the possibility that inflation is likely to begin creeping higher again later in the year. 

That is due to so-called "base effects" - the year-on-year comparison - and the fact that, in the second half of last year, the price of some goods in the inflation basket were falling or, at least, not rising as rapidly as they are expected to in the second half of last year. 

A good example of that, which stood out in the inflation figures published on Wednesday, is unleaded petrol - a litre of which cost 144.4p in May last year but which cost 148.8p in May this year.

More broadly, the economy is growing more strongly than the Bank has been expecting, as are several indicators of economic activity, among them spending by households on repair and maintenance of their homes and consumer confidence.

Wage inflation

The other major concern for the MPC is that wage inflation, at 5.9% during the three months to the end of April, remains too high for its liking.

The latest report from the Bank's network of regional agents - whose briefings are closely studied by the MPC's members - suggest that recruitment difficulties are "near to their pre-COVID levels" which represents "a historically high level".

Other survey data has also persuaded the MPC to conclude the labour market remains "a little tighter than official data" suggests.

The minutes highlight concerns that near-term pay growth may moderate by less than the Bank was expecting in its May report.

Consumer-facing businesses, which are most exposed to the National Living Wage, in particular are having to pay more to employees.

That said, a reduction in Bank rate is coming, with the MPC noting: "The restrictive stance of monetary policy is weighing on activity in the real economy, is leading to a looser labour market and is bearing down on inflationary pressures. 

"Key indicators of inflation persistence have continued to moderate, although they remain elevated."

When will interest rates be cut? 

The timing of that reduction is now going to be more fiercely debated than ever. Yesterday's inflation data, with that unexpectedly strong reading for services inflation, pushed market expectations for the timing of that first cut out from August to September.

Today's minutes, though, have persuaded some market participants to conclude that an August reduction in Bank rate may be back on.

The key line in the minutes that have raised that prospect was that, among some MPC members who voted for no change this month, "the policy decision at this meeting was finely balanced".

So the big takeaway from today's meeting is that the door remains open to an August reduction in Bank rate. 

The market was putting the probability of an August rate cut at 30% before the meeting. It is now placing a 60% probability on that.

But an August rate cut is not nailed on - and politics may yet rear its head - and the MPC will be watching closely to how markets react to the election result.

As Julian Howard, chief multi-asset investment strategist at GAM Investments, put it: "A potential Labour landslide could unsettle markets, in particular the currency.

"Sir Keir Starmer has come under pressure in recent days on the issue of tax and spending. Sterling will appreciate neither unfunded spending, nor a heavier tax burden."

Some more reaction to bring you now, with experts at Capital Economics suggesting the "pieces of the puzzle are almost in place" for a rate cut. 

It said "several developments implied a rate cut is getting closer", citing the two members who voted to cut rates by 25 percentage points to 5.00% and, interestingly, a lack of "hawkish" rhetoric in the minutes released alongside the decision.

"Despite the recent run of stronger inflation and activity data, the language in today's minutes was not much more hawkish than in May," Capital said.

"The minutes continued to suggest 'indicators of inflation persistence had continued to moderate' and that a range of indicators suggest pay growth had continued to ease.

"As a result, we still think there is a good chance of a rate cut in August and that rates will fall to 3.00% in 2025, rather than to 4.00% as investors expect."

We've been reading over the minutes from today's Monetary Policy Committee meeting - and here's what the governor had to say on the decision...

"It's good news that inflation has returned to our 2% target," Andrew Bailey said, referring to the data released yesterday.

"We need to be sure that inflation will stay low and that's why we've decided to hold rates at 5.25% for now."

Some reaction to bring you now to the Bank of England's decision to hold the interest rate at 5.25%.

Jonathan Bone, lead mortgage adviser at  Better.co.uk , criticises the decision: "Borrowers have waited three long years for inflation to return to the 2% target. 

"Now that it's finally happened, the excitement has dampened as underlying price pressures in the economy have not slowed as quickly as expected, and the ongoing election likely hasn't helped either. 

He says the Bank of England is "obstinate" and "unwilling to take action despite widespread criticism", adding: "Those with mortgages are desperate for relief."

Meanwhile, Tobias Gruber, chief executive  of  My Community Finance , says the decision means savers have more time to review their options.

He offers some advice to those looking around for savings options: "There are still excellent opportunities available for fixed-rate savings, with some providers offering interest rates of over 5%. 

"If you don't need immediate access to your money, locking in a competitive fixed rate now can protect you from future base rate cuts." 

The Bank of England's nine-person Monetary Policy Committee again voted 7-2 in favour of holding interest rates at 5.25%. 

That's the same split as when the committee last met. 

Reacting to the news, our economics and data editor Ed Conway says: "Everyone now is in a kind of holding pattern until August, when the next meeting takes place.

"That is the moment where people think there could be a cut.

"We're going to potentially be waiting until August and maybe even [as far away as] November -  it really depends on what happens with the data."

As expected, the Bank of England has held interest rates at 5.25% for the seventh time in a row.

The Monetary Policy Committee's vote in favour of maintaining the 16-year high in rates had been widely expected by economists and financial markets.

What does the decision mean?

This will come as a blow to borrowers, who will continue to pay a high rate on any loans they take out - like mortgages.

It's not bad news for all, however, as higher interest rates increase the return on savings.

Mark Hicks, head of Active Savings at investment platform Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "Right now, you can still earn more than 5% on everything from easy access accounts to those fixed for up to two years.

"Unfortunately, most people won't be making anything like this, because high street easy access branch rates are far less generous, and in most cases, they pay less than inflation (currently 2%). 

"At times like this it's key to check out the rates from online banks and savings platforms, which tend to pay more than the high street giants."

Check out our 6.36am post for our latest Savings Guide - as Savings Champion founder Anna Bowes gives her top three tips for savers right now.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free