credibility in research pdf

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 01 August 2024

Academic freedom and the unknown: credibility, criticism, and inquiry among the professoriate

• Marissa E. Yingling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8295-657X 1 &
• Charlton W. Yingling 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  987 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4164 Accesses

74 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

In the U.S., military and intelligence personnel, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), scholars, professional organizations, legislators, journalists, and others are requesting study of UFOs, recently renamed Unidentified Aerial/Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) by the U.S. government. Yet disinformation, misidentifications, hoaxes, and entertainment cloud the subject. Combined, these factors pertain to wider debates about the parameters of academic freedom. Here, we asked faculty across 14 disciplines at 144 research universities ( N  = 1460) to register insights about UAP in the academy via confidential survey. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first national study to examine scholars’ evaluations of academic credibility and possible social or professional repercussions—including concerns for tenure, promotion, and academic freedom—in relation to UAP. Results suggest that faculty concern that conducting UAP-related research would jeopardize their tenure or promotion might exceed colleagues’ actual negativity toward such research on tenure or promotional votes. Only 7.4% of faculty responded that “Yes” they would vote negatively (“No” = 61.92%, “Maybe” = 27.95%), though 52.67% reported some degree of concern for tenure or promotion. Faculty more frequently reported some degree of concern for social rather than professional repercussions. Concern for ridicule totaled 69.04%. Among all faculty, 66.24% reported that their discipline was capable to some degree of evaluating the evidence or significance of UAP. The disciplines of physics (95.82%), philosophy (88.73%), anthropology (87.09%), and engineering (83.15%) most frequently reported capability. Those who most frequently responded “Not at All” capable belonged to economics (59.7%), literature/English (54.46%), nursing (53.33%), and art and design (51.52%). Notably, although physics faculty most frequently responded that their discipline was capable to some degree of evaluation, nearly three in four reported some degree of concern about ridicule. From 250 open-ended responses, we generated 14 themes pertaining to research or teaching. To promote transparency, highlight a range of perspectives, and facilitate debate, for each theme we included at least 3 example quotes. In the context of ongoing developments, we discuss results, which underscore the complexity of beleaguered subjects and render conversations about academic freedom and UAP timely, relevant, and necessary.

Similar content being viewed by others

Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena

Deepfakes and scientific knowledge dissemination

Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on researchers: evidence from Chile and Colombia

Academic freedom is defined as “the right of scholars to study and report on any problem that their curiosity and conscience dictate, without fear of retribution” (Oxford Reference, 2022 ). This is a cornerstone principle of universities. In the U.S., it has recently encountered scrutiny (Cole, 2021 ). Debates over intellectual outputs, speech, and occasional deplatforming garner attention. Some of the most vociferous angst resounds from certain political corners that have sponsored recent legislative curbs on longstanding academic fields with societal importance (Diaz, 2023 ; Flaherty, 2021 ; “From Slavery to Socialism, New Legislation Restricts What Teachers Can Discuss,” 2022 ). Very recently, faculty and students have been arrested on campuses during crackdowns against demonstrators (Hendrix, 2024 ; Kepner and Heath, 2024 ; Reyes, 2024 ). In a separate range of situations, faculty have sometimes lost academic positions for unusual or “edgy” research (Black, 2015 ; Flaherty, 2022 ; Legal Cases Affecting Academic Speech , 2009 ), unwelcome opinions (Lawsuit Challenges Classroom Censorship, 2021 ; Legal Cases Affecting Academic Speech , 2009 ), or controversial speech (Flaherty, 2015 ; Powell, 2021a , 2021b ; Shibley, 2021 ).

Beyond this wider context of shifting social skirmishes and discrete cases, specific topics have long been stifled by stigma en totale . What of a subject that is, at least to date, largely apolitical, though so thickly shrouded in stigma that the mere mention of it in academia triggers dismissive or avoidant behavior by otherwise thoughtful and often openminded thinkers? What other topic in current events may accrue fear of retribution by those who might engage it?

Namely, appearing alongside stories on scholarship and surrounding societal strife is coverage on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP, now called “unidentified anomalous phenomena”). The U.S. government originally defined UAP as “Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents a broad category, which in part were once called UFOs” (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2021 ). The updated term includes transmedium objects or devices and submerged objects or devices (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, 2022 ).

Recently, intriguing comments on the importance of this subject from well-placed government officials, elected legislators, high-ranking intelligence personnel, and highly trained military pilots have all cast doubt on prosaic explanations for UAP (Cowen, n.d. ; Thebault, 2021 ; Washington National Cathedral, 2021 ). Recent resurgence of UAP appears in policy, and calls for scholarly inquiry coincide with extant, broader debates about the content and role of academia. However, there is no academic compass for the professoriate to navigate this topic. Further, rather than overlaying well-trodden fault lines, UAP are not mapped in most intellectual, political, and cultural conversations. We know almost nothing about how faculty view the credibility and stigma of researching unknown or potentially anomalous areas like this subject, nor what this could portend for critical issues within academia. The uptick of UAP in public visibility offers an unusual opportunity to examine stigma, credibility, career risks, and disciplinary capabilities across academic ranks.

Without conclusions about what recent developments mean, we became curious about how colleagues across disciplines—who in the aggregate have remained overwhelmingly quiet on this topic—viewed these developments for academia. Thoughtful work by a very small coterie of credentialed scholars contrasts with taboos against UAP. Aside from these exceptions, the professoriate has forfeited analysis of this topic to other voices. Unspoken signals and self-censoring say that we—academics—are literally not supposed to spend our serious time to read or think about this. Such attitudes persist despite recent reports and legislation.

Thus, academia has been caught in a tautology. Often scholars know little about this topic because peers have discouraged others from mentioning it seriously. Faculty do not know what other faculty think. This status quo hampers scholarly evaluation of new information and dissuades scholars from requesting better data from those who hold it. The public cannot look to scholars for insight. Academia thus abandons a critical role it serves for the wider public. In contrast to public silence, most professors who anonymously participated in the current study indicate that they find scrutiny of UAP important (Yingling et al. 2023 ).

The professoriate now sits at a potentially precarious impasse. Those content with the status quo might easily assert that this topic pertains to no discipline. However, whether a funding grab, psy-op, secret innovation, adversarial action, series of errors, objects of anomalous origin and/or nonhuman intelligence, or some confounding combination of the preceding, it matters not only to many disciplines, but to society writ large.

With these considerations, we welcomed faculty to openly register their thoughts with the protection of confidentiality. Research questions included: (1) If faculty conducted UAP-related research, how do they think their peers would perceive them?; (2) What are faculty perceptions of UAP-related research and researchers?; (3) What would be the importance of an unconventional explanation for UAP to academia?; and (4) How capable are individual academic disciplines of evaluating UAP? With answers to these questions, we discuss challenges, opportunities, and responsibilities relevant to the academy and consider future directions.

Why ask faculty about “UFOs”?

Given the unconventional nature of this subject, we accept responsibility for offering additional context for the study. Whatever the cause of this issue or its recent upsurge, academic disciplines may offer insights or expertise on materials, linguistic strategies, telemetry data, motives and meanings, precedents, psychologies, videos or images, and possibly much more. If new information or evidence appears, who better to ratify it than scholars of wide expertise? Or, to counter falsehoods or the concealment of consequential data, who better to offer scrutiny?

Disciplines are rightfully occupied with studying pressing matters ranging from disease to social strains, climate change, and beyond. However, we know the professoriate to be comprised of people with copious curiosity. Though serious and extensive evidence to back the truth claims made by influential people across key sectors of American society on this subject has remained limited, by late 2021 we wondered why statements on the subject from officials had not percolated into more academic conversations.

Several years after a 2017 New York Times article offered that the Pentagon-funded covert investigations into UAP, we noticed an increasing number of prominent journalistic sources seriously evaluating the topic (Bender, 2021 ; Chow and Schwartz, 2021 ; Rogan, 2021 ). Visibility increased in May 2021 with a story on CBS’s 60   Minutes in which experienced intelligence and military personnel discussed the covert program and reported incidents. That summer, the Pentagon released a report conceding that—despite the extraordinary sensory and satellite equipment in its technological repertoire—it could not identify items from 143 of 144 UAP incidents (C-SPAN, 2022 ; Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2021 ).

In recent years, high-ranking national intelligence officials have stated that UAP are real and unknown in intent or origin (Cowen, n.d. ; Thebault, 2021 ; Washington National Cathedral, 2021 ). Some have dismissed attributions of UAP to secretive technology, whether U.S., Russian, Chinese, or other. Some have even asserted that there are UAP which move with characteristics that make human origin unlikely (Carson, 2021 ; Holpuch, 2021 ).

Former President Obama also affirmed his seriousness toward UAP on late-night television (Cillizza, 2021 ). Former President Clinton concurred (Corden, 2022 ). In the past, former Presidents Carter and Reagan both said they witnessed UAP during their lives (Alter, 2021 ). In a speech to the United Nations, Reagan even suggested that nonhuman intelligence might unite humanity. A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush who has since influenced congressional actions on UAP recently echoed these sentiments (Mellon, 2023 ). Other high-level U.S. officials have issued intriguing comments on the credibility of witnesses and this topic (“Former Navy Rear Admiral Supports UFO Whistleblower Claims,” 2023 ; Gottlieb, 2024 ; Shellenberger et al. 2023 ).

As 2021 ended, President Biden signed into law the Gillibrand Amendment to the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act to establish an investigative office for UAP. Developments continued after we commenced our study. In May 2022 Congress held the first public hearing on UAP in nearly fifty years, and a month later, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally announced a scientific investigation into UAP (Davenport, 2022 ). In January 2023 the ODNI released a new UAP report that tallied hundreds of additional unexplained events. In February 2023, NORAD took “kinetic action against an airborne object” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2023 ) for the first time in 65 years. At least one of the objects shot down was positively identified as a balloon. Still, legislators left a classified briefing confused and demanding answers. Amid a surge in media attention regarding unknowns in our skies, President Biden addressed the nation (Roche, 2023 ; Rogan, 2023 ). John Kirby, the retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral serving as National Security Council spokesman, told a White House briefing, “The president, through his national security adviser, has today directed an interagency team to study the broader policy implications for detection, analysis and disposition of unidentified aerial objects that pose either safety or security risks”(Shabad, 2023 ). Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) praised new oversight legislation for having advanced this issue into serious conversation while requesting additional support (Rogers, 2023 ; Youssef and Wise, 2023 ). In April 2023, the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats held a hearing on UAP ( Open/Closed , 2023 ).

On May 31, 2023, NASA held a preliminary, public scientific panel tasked with determining how to study UAP. During the event, scientists discussed problems with stigma in reporting UAP, in identifying academic partners willing to collaborate, and in the credible pursuit and dissemination of research on a topic that was, until just recently, mostly deemed as fringe ( Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast)—YouTube , 2023 ). Conundrums from the present situation abound. It appears that none of the participants held clearances needed to vet highly classified information that some claim exists.

Six days later, on June 5, 2023, whistleblower David Grusch, who two months prior held Top Secret/Secret Compartmented Information clearances as a senior intelligence officer in the National Reconnaissance Office and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, made several extraordinary claims. Specifically, he said that materials “of exotic origin”, which he suggested are likely of nonhuman intelligence “based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures”, have been studied by the U.S. government and defense contractors. Two colleagues with similar clearances supported his assertions and credibility (Kean et al. 2023 ). When asked if the American public had been lied to for decades, Grusch stated that “there is a sophisticated disinformation campaign…which is extremely unethical and immoral.” He claims that the “data points empirically that we are not alone”, regrets that humans are “not even benefiting from broad research on this” (“We Are Not Alone,” 2023), and hopes that his “revelation serves as an ontological shock”. Among “other criminality and the suppression of information,” Grusch specifically alleged evidence was withheld from “academia” (Kean et al. 2023 ). Grusch stated that he wants to engage academia to open the study of UAP to greater scholarly transparency (Lombart, 2023 ).

Meanwhile, reports show that this topic is not confined to U.S. borders (Lomas, 2023 ). Recently, the Japanese, French, Brazilian, and Chinese governments have been investigating UAP (Bockman, 2014 ; Chen, 2021 ; “Japan Lawmakers to Create Group for Government Probes into UFOs,” 2024 ). Canada has founded a UAP study group that is due to release a report in 2024 (Otis, 2023 ). Reports, conferences, and debates have continued in Europe (Bernard, 2024 ; Friscourt, 2023 ; Ministero della Difesa: Aeronautica Militare, Repubblica Italiana, 2024 ; ZDFheute Nachrichten, 2024 ). In early 2024, Member of European Parliament Francisco Guerreiro of Portugal requested a “scientific” approach to UAP information. On the floor of the Parliament of the European Union he asked that “the EU Commission includes, in the European Space Law, a program to collect data on UAPs as well as the scientific body to analyze these events in a transparent and public way” (European Parliament, 2024 ).

While witnessing this public record expand, we perceive the need for questions and clarifications. We fully acknowledge that this topic is beset. Perhaps faculty are more dismissive of UAP after false alarms of the anomalous in the past (Dick, 2015 ). Disinformation, psy-ops, hoaxes, grifts, and entertainment have succeeded at stigmatizing serious inquiry (Washington Post Live, 2021a ). Beyond the fickle gaze of public interest, a few researchers have endured ridicule and reprimand to examine this matter. Yet to date, the apparent risk/reward ratio yields low scholarly participation.

Topics permeating the corners of popular cultural conjecture seldom move to fact-finding congressional hearings. In this paper, we do not pretend to present explanations. However, the existence of recent public developments is indisputable. Academic credibility, criticism, and inquiry regarding them are aspects that we can, and should, investigate.

The study sample ( N  = 1460) included tenured and tenure-track faculty in 14 predetermined disciplines at 144 universities in the U.S. classified as “Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity” by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Carnegie Classifications, 2022 ). We excluded inactive faculty (i.e., Emeritus, retired), as well as Clinical Professors, Lecturers, and their equivalents at any rank because often their primary assignment is teaching, not conducting research. We compiled a list of 144 universities and colleges with this classification as of December 2021 (excluding the investigators’ universities). Using Excel’s RAND function, we randomly assigned the Universities and Colleges to the batches we used as part of the data collection process. We visited all university websites and collected publicly available data (i.e., faculty names, ranks, and email addresses) for 14 disciplines across the sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts using Google Chrome’s Web Scraper. In cases where the scraper was incompatible with webpages, we manually collected information.

We consulted the most recent information on conferred baccalaureate degrees from the National Center for Education Statistics. Using this data, we selected nursing, sociology, anthropology, psychology, mechanical engineering, biology, journalism/communication, political science, and visual arts, many of the most popular undergraduate majors (U.S. Department of Education, 2021 ). Business is also a common major. We thus included economics faculty, who are frequently housed in business schools.

Although not among the most common majors, we determined that it was preferable to include philosophy, physics, religious studies, literature, and art. Had we only applied the most common majors according to national statistics, the study would have excluded physics, which would have introduced significant criticism given the topic at hand, and the humanities would have been excluded entirely. On this subject, we often defer to the sciences. Our goal, however, was to reach a diverse sample of disciplines. This topic may not simply pertain to motion or matter, but to meaning. Questions of impact or discernment exceed simply making scientific measurements. These five disciplines are longstanding staples of academic research and university life. They represent varied avenues of intellectual inquiry and often appear in curricular requirements across institutions. Additional considerations about categorizing faculty are reported elsewhere (Yingling et al. 2023 ).

Recruitment

The University of Louisville Institutional Review Board approved this study (22.0103). Between February 24, 2022 and April 27, 2022, we sent initial email invitations on a rolling basis through Qualtrics. This allowed us to commence data collection while compiling email addresses and to capture any changes in responses associated with any relevant news or academic developments, if they were to occur. Each faculty member was provided with an individual survey link generated by Qualtrics, which prevented duplication or sharing the link with others. Following best practices of survey recruitment (Dillman, 2007 ), we sent three reminder emails during three subsequent weeks. The survey portal remained open to all participants for 22 days. The survey closed to the final group of participants on May 19, 2022. Recruitment emails included an inline email question that asked if recipients could spare 10–12 min to share their thoughts. If they selected “Yes” they were routed to the survey. The consent process involved unsigned informed consent (preamble).

The final population of faculty totaled 39,984. Of the 40,322 initial recruitment emails, 174 bounced (rejected by recipients’ server), 10 failed to send (email did not leave the Qualtrics server because email address was formatted incorrectly, though they did not have apparent formatting issues), 31 were blocked by the recipient’s server (all cases included psychology faculty at the University of Utah), we received 14 automated emails stating that faculty were on leave, and 109 faculty who began the survey were ineligible. Total responses included 1549. The response rate was 3.9%. We suspect this rate could be based on several factors described elsewhere, along with additional details on study methods, including selection of the sample, an overview of survey development, survey items, and implementation (Yingling et al. 2023 ).

Briefly, to enhance readability of this paper, in an earlier paper we assessed faculty awareness and reactions to journalistic, governmental, and scholarly developments related to UAP (Yingling et al. 2023 ). In this paper, one study component included examination of whether and to what extent these developments impacted faculty reports of credibility, curiosity, and interest in conducting UAP-related research. These developments included a 2017 New York Times article, a 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report (colloquially the Pentagon report), a 2021 amendment to the NDAA that established and funded a government office to study UAP, and scholarship by four researchers who actively engaged this topic at the time the study commenced.

Data analysis and reporting

We conducted all data management and analyses using SAS® 9.4. All results are presented as descriptive statistics using the PROC FREQ and PROC UNIVARIATE procedures. We retained respondents who completed at least 50% of the survey, including questions that appear in another publication (Yingling et al. 2023 ), and removed respondents with less than 50% completed ( n  = 89). We retained cases in which participants completed a majority of survey responses because we conducted descriptive analyses, not parametric tests that assume normality, and we wanted to retain as many cases as possible. Notably, 25 cases included incomplete responses on all variables in this paper and 7 cases included incomplete responses on more than 50% of variables. We retained these cases to allow readers to consider and interpret the results of both papers as one sample rather than as two distinct samples. We calculated frequencies and reported a missing category for each variable of interest (Table 1 , Supplementary Table 1 ). However, to provide the greatest detail and clarity of results possible, we also report the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation of all Likert-type variables for those respondents with complete data (Tables 2 and 3 ).

Given the descriptive nature of this study, we determined that the benefits of this approach outweighed any drawbacks. That said, of the 91 respondents with missing data, 43 were indicative of survey fatigue, suggesting that data were not missing at random. We also removed two participants who did not take the survey in good faith; one included vulgarity, and one shared in the open-ended response that they simply clicked through the survey because they were curious.

We asked participants “ What is your discipline or field? (e.g., sociology, biology, literature) ” and provided a text box for faculty to write their response. This resulted in a range of disciplines reported, including disciplines that were not targeted by the survey (e.g., law, statistics, dentistry). We grouped all reported disciplines into the 14 original disciplines and added an “other” category ( n  = 143) for respondents who reported disciplines outside of the 14 selected.

Participants also reported their current rank (assistant professor, associate professor, professor), current institution type (public/private), number of years employed full time as a tenured or tenure-track faculty member at any institution, and the year they completed their doctorate. We asked respondents to report demographic information: birth year, gender (male, female, transgender male, transgender female, non-binary/non-conforming), race (White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race), and ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic). To obtain a well-rounded understanding of sample characteristics, we asked participants to share the year, country, and, if in the U.S., the state in which they earned their doctorate. Respondents earned their doctorates between the years 1963 and 2022 across 30 countries and 45 of 50 states as well as the District of Columbia.

Qualitative data

In reporting open-ended responses, considering the stigma associated with this topic, we took the protection of anonymity especially seriously. Throughout the study all participants remained anonymous to investigators unless they volunteered identifying information.

The final survey item invited participants to “ Please write anything else you would like to say about this topic .” Of the open-ended responses, 250 related to research or teaching and 111 related to the survey, which itself is academic research. To generate themes from this data we employed the constant comparative method using initial coding. Focusing on content relevant to study research questions (i.e., research and teaching in academia) we compared sentences and phrases to determine their conceptual similarity and distinctness. This approach was sufficient and did not require Second Cycle coding given that analysis involved a single open-ended response in a survey rather than interview transcripts or multiple data sources, did not build upon prior scholarship, and did not seek to generate theory (Saldaña’, 2015 ). The first author conducted the analysis while the second author served as auditor.

Sample demographics appear in Table 1 . Disciplines represented included anthropology, art and design, biology, communication/journalism, economics, engineering, literature/English, nursing, philosophy, physics, political science, psychology, religious studies, sociology, and “other”. Most respondents were male (61.85%) and white (79.52%), and more respondents were at the rank of professor (43.56%) than assistant (23.63%) or associate professor (30.55%).

Researching UAP in academia

We presented two questions to assess faculty perceptions about conducting their own UAP-related research (Fig. 1a–b ): If you conducted UAP-related research, how concerned would you be that your work would jeopardize tenure or promotion? (Not at All, Slightly, Somewhat, Moderately, or A Great Deal); If you conducted UAP-related research, how concerned would you be that your academic colleagues would give you a “hard time” or ridicule you? (Not at All to A Great Deal) . Three questions examined faculty perceptions of others’ UAP-related research. Two questions were hypothetical (Fig. 2a, b ): How much would knowing that a colleague or otherwise credible member of your field was conducting UAP-related research devalue or diminish your perception of their other conventional scholarship? ( Not at All to A Great Deal ). If a colleague in your unit under consideration for tenure or promotion conducted UAP-related research, would this negatively influence your evaluation of their case? ( Yes/No/Maybe ). Responses to questions varied by self-reported interest in conducting UAP-related research (Figs. 1a, b and 2a, b ). They also varied by discipline (Supplementary Table 1 , Supplementary Figs. 1 – 4 ). The third question asked about recent UAP-related scholarship by peers (Fig. 2c ). We presented faculty with recent academic scholarship and asked to what extent it increased 1) the credibility of conducting UAP-related research; (2) their curiosity about UAP-related research; and 3) their interest in conducting UAP-related research.

Response to questions, a “If you conducted UAP-related research, how concerned would you be that your work would jeopardize tenure or promotion?”; b “If you conducted UAP-related research, how concerned would you be that your academic colleagues would give you a “hard time” or ridicule you?”.

Response to questions, a “How much would knowing that a colleague or otherwise credible member of your field was conducting UAP-related research devalue or diminish your perception of their other conventional scholarship?”; b “If a colleague in your unit under consideration for tenure or promotion conducted UAP-related research, would this negatively influence your evaluation of their case?”; and c How much does knowing about academic scholars such as Dr. Nolan of Stanford University, Dr. Loeb of Harvard University, Dr. Pasulka of UNC-Wilmington, and Dr. Knuth of SUNY Albany increase your 1) curiosity about UAP; 2) the credibility of conducting UAP-related research; 3) your interest in conducting UAP-related research?”.

Overall, 69.04% of faculty reported some degree of concern about ridicule (i.e., Slightly, Somewhat, Moderately, or A Great Deal) and 52.67% reported some degree of concern about tenure or promotion. Detailed in Supplementary Table 1 , disciplines with the highest proportion of faculty who reported some degree of concern about ridicule included those in biology (82.02%), political science (81.46%), psychology (79.11%), nursing (75.56%), and physics (74.3%). Those with the highest proportion of faculty who reported some degree of concern about tenure or promotion included those in nursing (66.67%), biology (67.41%), engineering (65.16%), political science (56.95%), and economics (55.22%). When asked if they would vote against tenure or promotion for UAP-related scholarship, 61.92% of faculty responded “No” while 7.4% responded “Yes” and 27.95% responded “Maybe”. Compared to faculty who reported interest in conducting research, faculty who did less often responded “No” (55.1 vs. 72.46%). Supplementary Table 2 includes results by discipline. Disciplines with ≥10% of faculty who responded “Yes” included biology (12.36%), nursing (11.11%), engineering (11.24%), and economics (10.45%); disciplines with ≥70% of faculty who responded “No” included art and design (77.27%), nursing (73.33%), religious studies (72.41%), sociology (71.9%) and communication/journalism (70.59%); and disciplines with ≥30% of faculty who responded “Maybe” included physics (40.28%), psychology (35.07%), biology (34.83%), and political science (34.44%).

Assistant professors most frequently reported some degree of concern about jeopardizing tenure or promotion (73.41%). This compared to associate professors (56.72%) or full professors (40.25%), who likely already held tenure and promotion. Assistant and associate professors reported similar frequencies of some degree of concern about ridicule (74.85 vs 72.87%). Although most full professors reported concern about social ramifications, they reported the least concern among the three ranks (66.04%). Full professors also reported the least increase in curiosity, credibility, and interest in conducting UAP-related research. Associate professors reported the greatest increase in curiosity and credibility. Assistant professors reported the greatest increase in interest conducting research.

Compared to faculty with no interest in conducting UAP-related research, those with interest more frequently responded that a colleagues’ UAP-related research would “Not at All” devalue or diminish their other conventional work (54.85 vs 72.83%; Fig. 2a ). The disciplines of faculty who most frequently responded “Not at All” included religious studies (89.66%), art and design (74.24%), anthropology (72.58%), sociology (71.9%), philosophy (71.83%), and communication/journalism (70.59%; Supplementary Table 1 , Supplementary Fig. 3 ). The only discipline in which a majority of faculty did not select “Not at All” was biology (41.57%). Faculty who reported interest in conducting UAP-related research and those who did not were similar in their concern about colleagues giving them a hard time or ridiculing them and concern for jeopardizing tenure or promotion (Fig. 1a, b ).

Reported elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of faculty in this sample were previously unaware of the scholarship presented in the survey (Yingling et al. 2023 ). Here, 77.34% reported that it increased the credibility of UAP-related research to some degree (Slightly to A Great Deal); 73.23% responded that it increased their curiosity to some degree, and 41.28% responded that it increased their interest in conducting UAP-related research to some degree.

Importance of an unconventional explanation to academia and discipline

Among those open to unconventional explanations for UAP reported by the Pentagon are prominent officials, legislators, scholars, journalists, and highly trained military pilots (Cowen, n.d. ; Cuomo, 2021 ; University of Virginia Center for Politics, 2021 ; Washington National Cathedral, 2021 ). Given suggestive statements by these professionals, and considering that culturally, an unknown intelligence would likely be the most profound explanation, we found it relevant to ask faculty, “ If UAP could be explained by an unknown intelligence, how important would this be to academic consensus theories and knowledge? ” ( Not Important at All, Of Little Importance, Of Average Importance, Very Important, or Absolutely Essential ) and “ If UAP could be explained by an unknown intelligence, how important would this be to your discipline? ”

More than 56% of faculty reported that origins from an unknown intelligence would be “Very Important” or “Absolutely Essential” to theories and knowledge while 39.38% reported that it would be “Very Important” or “Absolutely Essential” to their discipline (Fig. 3a ). Nearly half of faculty in economics (49.26%), engineering (49.44%), nursing (48.89%), and sociology (47.94%) and a majority of faculty in all other disciplines ranked the importance to theories and knowledge as “Very Important” or “Absolutely Essential” (Supplementary Table 1 , Supplementary Fig. 5 ); most faculty in the disciplines of anthropology, biology, philosophy, physics, and religious studies ranked importance to their discipline as “Very Important” or “Absolutely Essential” (Supplementary Table 1 , Supplementary Fig. 6 ). Degree of importance varied by whether faculty reported interest in conducting UAP-related research (Fig. 3b ); interested faculty more frequently selected “Very Important” (39.49 vs 36.12%) or “Absolutely Essential” (30.98 vs 11.67%) to theories and knowledge and “Very Important” (34.96 vs 22.25%) or “Absolutely Essential” (20.83 vs 7.16%) to their discipline.

a Response to questions, “Considering recent governmental and journalistic reports, federal legislation, and current academic scholarship, if UAP could be explained by an unknown intelligence, how important would this be to (1) your discipline or (2) academic consensus theories and knowledge?”; b response to question in ( a ) stratified by interest in conducting UAP-related research.

Faculty also ranked their discipline’s capability “ of evaluating the evidence and/or significance of UAP ” (Supplementary Table 1 , Supplementary Fig. 7 ). Among all faculty, 66.24% reported some degree of capability (Slightly, Moderately, Very, or Extremely Capable); among those who most frequently reported some degree of capability, disciplines included physics (95.82%), philosophy (88.73%), anthropology (87.09%), and engineering (83.15%). Those who most frequently responded “Not at All” capable belonged to economics (59.7%), literature/English (54.46%), nursing (53.33%), and art and design (51.52%).

Open-ended responses pertaining to academic research or teaching

The final survey item invited participants to “ Please write anything else you would like to say about this topic .” Among responses, 250 related to research or teaching. From these, we generated 14 themes and one standalone quote (see Table 4 for all themes and example quotes). Of the responses, 39 applied to two themes. The most common themes included Research Ideas/Sources/Engagement ( n  = 49), in which faculty suggested areas of research, potential data sources, needs for research such as theoretical models, and their current engagement in UAP-related research; Research Challenges ( n  = 46), such as those related to employing the scientific method, accessing data, disentangling fact from fiction/disinformation, and seven references to the Carl Sagan quote that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; and Stigma ( n  = 35), which included statements that demonstrated the stigma affiliated with this topic (e.g., warnings to the authors to be careful, examples of senior scholars being widely ridiculed for research in an area related to UAP, etc.) as well as direct commentary about existing stigma.

In response to the same question, 111 faculty reacted to the survey. We categorized these responses into four basic reactions, including positive ( n  = 68; e.g., “Thank you for conducting this survey… I think robust scientific research is long overdue. If not for the stigma associated with the topic, I think we’d be years ahead of where we are in understanding these phenomena.”; “GOOD LUCK WITH THIS WORK. I was a cannabis researcher for decades and took a ration of criticism for it. I can only imagine the flack you’re going to get…STAY BRAVE.”), negative ( n  = 32; e.g., “This survey feels vaguely conspiracy-theorist”; “…depressing that this survey will be used to give the DOD more money instead of fundamental sciences”), curious ( n  = 7; “I spent this entire survey trying to figure out what this study’s objectives were… Fascinating.”; “I am curious about whether this survey is about UAPs or one’s confidence in news sources and the government, a very well done survey!”), and other ( n  = 4; e.g., “this is a weird survey”).

This research reveals the complexity of considering beleaguered topics in academia. There were certainly faculty in the study who said this subject deserves no attention whatsoever. Some espoused apathy. Some even thought that researchers in this area should be “ashamed” or are “bought off or just dumb”. Others viewed extant stigma as contrary to the pursuit of knowledge, prohibitive to scholarly interests, and fostering abandonment of responsibility to critique narratives, which one participant thought could be “quite dangerous and could easily be a pretext for atrocities against humans”.

Importantly, these results combined with recent findings underscore the conflict between academic freedom and the social component of respectability and acceptability by which scholars fear the lack of approval from peers over the questions they ask. Faculty report mediocre confidence in future government reports on UAP, assess scholarship on UAP as more credible than journalism, government reports, and legislation, and many would be more likely to conduct UAP research if someone they considered reputable did so (Yingling et al. 2023 ). Where does this leave us?

Stigma: social and professional sanctions

Some faculty demur as to whether this topic fits legitimate academic inquiry. Further, stigma remains elevated. Yet who draws the line of “acceptability” for research questions or conversations? In recent decades, adjacent areas of inquiry have received severe scorn (Israel, 1995 ). However, boundaries on other stigmatized subjects have shifted before. Few people today dismiss or bristle at research on sexual health, religiosity, mind-altering substances, or the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI). Though de rigueur today, these fields met sensitivity and scrutiny mere decades ago.

Results indicate that faculty who fear negative social and professional sanctions may be greater in number than faculty who would choose to sanction them. However, this most certainly does not simply render the topic accessible. Indeed, we the researchers experienced overt stigma when we simply and sincerely asked faculty for their opinions. It mattered not that we initiated questions in the context of conversations and legislation of the U.S. federal government.

In fact, although some faculty expressed enthusiasm for receiving our invitation (e.g., “I was absolutely delighted to find such initiative in my inbox. Overjoyed…!), as reported in greater detail elsewhere (Yingling et al. 2023 ), the first email we received from a prospective participant expressed insult. In open-ended survey responses, we were told to “be careful” and we were wished luck with our tenure cases by a participant who once tried to openly discuss the topic but now avoids it due to stigma. However, in the aggregate, faculty responses suggest that unease may not be accompanied by actual professional sanctions. That said, although a minority of faculty reported that they would vote against a colleagues’ tenure and/or promotion case for conducting UAP-related research (7.4%), a much larger minority (27.95%) reported that they might. Open-ended responses provide some insight into this more conditional response and suggest that respondents differ in their reasoning. While some communicated that what matters is the quality and impact of a colleague’s work, others outlined their expected boundaries of investigation. Specifically, that their vote would depend on how a colleague approached the topic or how much time they devoted to it. According to some faculty, acceptable areas of inquiry into UAP belong within the confines of literature, culture, and mental illness. Yet, into which of these bins would they file recent taxpayer-funded studies and reports on UAP? Do previous labels of entertainment, delusion, or folklore remain sufficient?

Professors who report the least concern about social and professional repercussions for studying UAP do not represent disciplines that assess themselves as being the most equipped to evaluate them. Art and design faculty were among the least concerned about repercussions but ranked their own discipline among the least suited to study the topic. In contrast, 95.82% of physics faculty ranked their discipline as capable to some degree, with the highest number of faculty across disciplines who responded “Moderately Capable” (31.94%), “Very Capable” (34.72%), or “Extremely Capable” (20.83%) yet nearly three in four reported some degree of concern about ridicule. Similarly, 83.15% of engineering faculty ranked their discipline as capable to some degree but also included some of the highest numbers of faculty who reported some degree of concern that UAP-related research would jeopardize tenure and/or promotion and some of the highest numbers who would vote against a colleague’s case for tenure and/or promotion for such research. Prior research indicates that many faculty think there should be academic participation in the evaluation of UAP information and more academic research on UAP, including half of faculty in physics (49.3%) and engineering (50.6%; Yingling et al. 2023 ). What does it mean that faculty in these disciplines might also be the most likely to dispense or experience negative repercussions?

Results also point to the role of power dynamics, as responses differed by rank. Newly minted PhDs appear to be the most open-minded toward UAP, if only marginally. Yet pre-tenure, they are clearly the most vulnerable. Another complicating factor is that compared to faculty who did not report interest in conducting UAP-related research, interested faculty more often reported some degree of concern about repercussions and less often reported that they would socially or professionally sanction faculty who do conduct research.

Misconceptions, biases, and language

Participants’ reactions to and assumptions about the investigators, and the survey itself, are telling. Simply presenting this study elicited a range of emotional reactions. At times, some infused their own disciplinary biases (e.g., in response to the single open-ended question, psychologists wondered if we were conducting an experimental survey rather than soliciting opinions about government reports or news). One participant wrote, “In every instance in this survey, UAP could be replaced by tiny pink unicorn with silver wings…UAP is still a spurious category…While I think there may be life out there somewhere in the vast Universe, I do NOT think any of it is coming to the Earth in flying saucers”. In this case and others, some faculty imposed their own preconceptions and language.

Though we employed the term “unknown intelligence” to investigate the significance of arguably the most profound yet exploratory explanation for UAP, we never asserted evidence for this explanation. We did not inquire about “extraterrestrials”, “aliens”, or “flying saucers”. Participants opted to use these terms. We were attentive, cautious, and selective with language, hence our utilization of only the U.S. federal government’s definition of UAP. Elsewise, some faculty spoke to this challenge of definitions and theoretical models to welcome scholarly discourse.

Four quotes that participants volunteered in response to the open-ended question illustrate the difficulty in arriving at consensus lexicons and theories without further research: “I believe UAP exist but do not believe it is from extraterrestrial being.”; “I believe UAP exists, but I don’t believe that so many people can observe it.”; “I am more inclined to believe that our consciousness is not what we think it is than to believe that this is all there is and there happens to also be aliens here.”; and “I believe we have UFOs that are ET-based. I also believe the government has classified technology that may be confused with UFOs….government reports may be disclosed for an agenda….” Others opined that UAP are nothing more than optical illusions, hoaxes, or black ops, among other conventional explanations. Intriguingly, some participants registered the opposite - perhaps somewhat sarcastically - with the phrase “I believe” or “I want to believe.” Referencing the public, others said “people believe” things because they want to believe them.

At this juncture, all of these views arguably stem from a dearth of data. Clearly, cultural baggage impacts this topic. This study shows how stigma associated with extant terms and models limits earnest inquiry and conversation. We are pleased to collect these thoughts, although we never asked about “belief.” Can scholars operate in the realm of “belief”? In the domain of believing one thing or another, how are scholars more valuable than the broader public, who also wrestle with factual fragments that emerge?

Alongside stigma, vocabulary, and disciplinary divergences, these results point to another salient conundrum. Faculty have never before been asked to collect, analyze, or debate data on UAP. That seems to be a fulcrum of discomfort. Understandably, in this context, and with the unexpected ascent of this topic in public discourse, many seem unprepared to engage.

Can faculty transparency about their interests and motivations prevent misconceptions? Besides tenure, do faculty require additional protections to take risks of academic freedom? For those professors who prefer engagement, rarely must other emergent inquiries hurdle presumptions of disinformation, mythology, instrumental error, or even psychosis. Further, academic consequences from governmental mistruths, whether past or present, are perhaps vast. It remains to be seen whether this will cause scholars to avoid public roles in vetting this topic due to fear from narrative, custom, and odium. Concerns for reputational damage are real and relevant.

If UAP developments are a ruse, what an odd ruse to choose to divert attention, extract intelligence, attract talent, develop innovations, obscure technology, bluff, illuminate adversarial progress, cultivate unity or anxiety, or beg for more money. If a peculiar ruse it is, the U.S. Congress has either been conned or is in on a con. Further, it is keenly important to remain aware of tactics in content curation, media manipulation, and perception management (Laslo, 2023 ; MacLeod, 2019 ; Pasulka, 2023 ; Pilkington, 2010 ; Timm, 2023 ). Regardless of an individual’s preferred explanation, public fanfare and the copious funding, fiction, fear, and hopefully fact that follow still hang in the balance.

However, if these possible explanations are only secondary motives to a less prosaic, primary driver of this arising UAP discourse, at what point is it reasonable to expect those who revert to old explanations for new developments to prove their assumptions are the most valid? This question is not rhetorical. Events have expanded since we commenced this study. As we all await better information, we suggest considering that time could be now.

If there is more to UAP than deception and naïveté, then UAP are all the more important to examine. And, consequential deception and naïveté are still worth stringent scrutiny . Further, if military and intelligence officials are not playing games, are being truthful about their views, and are yet entirely wrong in their assessments, we have additional serious problems to consider. Confirming momentous results, or confounding momentary riposte, requires expertise across academic areas.

If the forecast portends cultural détente on the UAP topic, which butterfly effect will cause a storm in academic circles? Will scholars lead on this topic, or will they only react to assumptions that waft upon the winds of societal change? Ignoring the topic outright might soon become passé.

Funding and data

Faculty commented on funding in open-ended responses. On whether funding should be allocated for UAP research, they disagreed. Opinions diverged on which forms of funding are most appropriate and the amount of funding that should be allocated given competing priorities. Further, asking if funding should exist does not amount to assuming that it must. Referring to this study on faculty perspectives, another participant erroneously opined, “I can’t believe you got grant funding to do this.” We did not. There is no such grant. Assumptions about incentives are instructive.

Further, one participant insisted that, “You should have been more transparent as to how you will personally benefit from conducting this survey.” On this topic perhaps transparency is of greater importance than in more standard lines of research. We have no personal benefit from conducting this project and dealt with suspicion we never faced in our other research. Rather, offering new knowledge—including recording cynicism and other reactions—hopefully benefits a wide audience.

These quotes arrived alongside comments from faculty that the study of UAP is a waste of time and money. This demonstrates the challenge to considering if, and how, funding mechanisms for study of novel topics could, or should, appear. This is at variance with the more than one-third of faculty who report interest in studying UAP (Yingling et al. 2023 ). However, tellingly, 54.89% of faculty report that they would be more likely to study UAP if there was funding to do so. Relatedly, research funding is competitive and occurs in a context of dwindling support for higher education (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016 ; Whitford, 2021 ). Entire fields, disciplines, and universities have become chronically unfunded or underfunded (Bird, 2022 ; Fisk and Atun, 2009 ; Testino, 2022 ; The Graduate School: Postdoctoral Affairs, n.d.).

An aversion to conversation renders academia less relevant to considerations surrounding possible funding. For instance, considering the military and aerospace actors with long histories of exorbitant governmental funding, a likely outcome might be the prioritization of advanced weapons platforms or space domination rather than considering broader human interests. Studies already funded by taxpayers remain bureaucratically submerged. In the case of UAP, public and private money could certainly follow recent developments. To whom will researchers who accept such money answer? How might this tinge perceptions of results? Who will set the parameters? How might those already queued to serve themselves further beset public benefit or trust surrounding this subject? Which comes first, public UAP studies or funding? Perhaps moving forward, the two are inextricable.

Further complicating research considerations is the problem of informational asymmetry. Academia has a severely limited dataset compared to classified sources, as some participants noted. Military and intelligence personnel have, only recently and partially, shared such sources and data with congressional committees tasked with oversight. By word and deed, it seems some officials’ interest in UAP has been piqued by information collection paid for by a citizenry that is prevented from knowing any details that might offer important nuance to our knowledge base, even if the public never needs to know national security sensitivities or collection methods.

Recent legislation has started to consider this issue. In July 2022, the Pentagon renamed and somewhat revamped the UAP office, now called “AARO,” the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (O’Connor, 2022 ). Among other duties, it must create “procedures to synchronize and standardize the collection, reporting, and analysis” (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, 2021 ) of incidents and issue annual reports. This would require staff to review cases dating to January 1, 1945, including “any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information” (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, 2022 ) regarding UAP or linked activities. It remains in question what findings the public will eventually see.

Limitations and opportunities

The sample size of this study is larger than recent surveys among faculty at institutions of higher education, which have ranged between 113 and 329 (Sabagh et al. 2018 ). However, the primary limitation of this study is the response rate. Without question, supported by evidence respondents themselves offered, the stigma attached to this topic contributed to the low rate. Importantly, faculty responses do not indicate that self-selection bias occurred based on interest in the topic; only ~6% of faculty reported that they frequently or very frequently seek news on this subject. Future research in this area will require consideration of not only increasing response rates but also improving representation across gender and race-ethnicity (see Yingling et al. 2023 for detailed discussion of response rate and sample demographics).

This study is also limited due to its novelty and method utilized. Research on any topic must begin somewhere, and we initiated work in this area using a survey. Although this enabled a large sample size, the inability to ask nuanced follow-up questions leaves results open to a range of interpretations. For instance, among those faculty who would or who might sanction their peers for conducting UAP-related research, can their response be interpreted as a lack of insight into the potential application to their discipline, as outright rejection, as a combination of the two, or something else? What, specifically, gives faculty who assess their disciplines as capable of evaluating the evidence or significance of UAP their confidence? Among faculty with interest in conducting UAP-related research, what research questions might they consider? Further, we cannot rule out the possibility that faculty who completed the survey are less likely to sanction their peers for UAP-related work than those faculty who did not participate. This study is a preliminary investigation that provides no definitive answers regarding sanctions. Qualitative research might be most appropriate to advance knowledge in areas inaugurated in this study.

Opportunities for future work abound. If the events that have transpired in the time since we closed the survey are any indication—additional legislation, public hearings, whistleblowers, NORAD’s actions to shoot down UAP—there will likely be others in the future. What might faculty thoughts be on the latest and future developments? How might faculty perceptions of this topic and related considerations of academic freedom evolve? How might developments influence faculty engagement? What personal or institutional factors might influence faculty to conduct UAP-related research?

In various ways, some scholars have recently studied cultural responses to anomalies, albeit in some disciplines that registered less stigma than others (Andresen and Chon-Torres, 2022 ; Finley, 2022 ; Lepselter, 2016 ; Peters, 2011 ; Washington Post Live, 2021b ). How might faculty perceive this scholarship in the context of ongoing UAP developments? How might faculty actions, reactions, or evaluations influence current events or public opinion? These and other questions are ripe for investigation and would benefit from mixed methods and longitudinal approaches.

Developments related to UAP are ongoing. On June 22, 2023 Senators Warner (D-VA) and Rubio (R-FL) introduced a complete draft of the 2023–2024 Intelligence Authorization Act for congressional consideration (Text - S.2103 - 118th Congress (2023–2024): Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, 2023). The intent of Section 1104, “Funding Limitations Relating to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena”, is for the Federal Government to “expand awareness about any historical exotic technology antecedents previously provided by the Federal Government for research and development purposes” by requiring transparency of government offices and contractors. No later than 180 days of enactment, “any material and information…relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena that formerly or currently is protected by any form of special access or restricted access” must provide “a comprehensive list of all non-earth origin or exotic unidentified anomalous phenomena material”.

Significantly, one of the most prominent politicians in the U.S., who has rarely commented on the UAP topic, presented an extensive and assertive amendment to the most recent NDAA for public consideration. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—who is the current Senate Majority Leader, has a reputation for cautious calculation, and is a close collaborator on legislation with the Biden White House—announced the “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023” (UAP Disclosure Act of 2023, 2023 ). With atypical bipartisanship on this issue yet again, Senators Todd Young (R-IN), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), all of whom hold prominent committee roles regarding intelligence and armed forces, supported co-sponsor Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) ( Congressional Record - Senate , 2023). Schumer and Rubio, as respectively the current Senate Majority Leader and Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have been members of the highly classified briefings afforded to the “Gang of Eight,” members of Congress given briefings on the most sensitive intelligence of the U.S. government. On many other matters, these two senators are regularly at odds (Desiderio and Bertrand, 2020 ).

The proposed legislation featured more than 20 mentions each of technologies of “unknown origin” and “non-human intelligence,” including specific definitions for these terms. Schumer and colleagues demanded transparency in records, examination of overclassification, and proper governmental oversight of opaque programs that might exist on these topics. In this proposal, these senators expressly promoted academic participation in offering clarity and analysis. The Schumer and Rounds amendment was adopted and approved by the Senate in its final version of the NDAA (S.2226). Much of the most strident language about UAP and nonhuman intelligence was removed in committee within the House (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, 2023 ; Barna et al. 2024 ).

Further, the House Oversight Committee’s National Security Subcommittee announced a new public hearing. This event with former military pilots and whistleblower David Grusch occurred on 26 July 2023 (Rep. Burchett and Oversight Committee Members on Upcoming Hearing on UAP, 2023 ). In this hearing and under oath, Grusch said that the U.S. had recovered various nonhuman materials (Romo and Chappell, 2023 ).

In December 2023, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick departed AARO leadership. In lengthy comments since, he has criticized Congress, curious citizens, and the news media. He also chided the Pentagon for excessive secrecy. Kirkpatrick asserted that, “If there is a void in the information space, it will be filled with the imagination of the public right…conspiracies and…accusations” (Seligman, 2024 ). Elsewhere, he said of those advocating for UAP oversight, legislation, and transparency, “It is basically a religion, a religious belief that transcends critical thinking and rational thought” (Luscombe, 2024 ).

Kirkpatrick has regularly used “conspiracy” labels to characterize interest in this topic, including among Congress. He asserted, “many of the circulating allegations described above derive from inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures of legitimate U.S. programs or related R&D that have nothing to do with extraterrestrial issues or technology. Some are misrepresentations, and some derive from pure, unsupported beliefs.” Kirkpatrick has also assailed, “The result of this whirlwind of tall tales, fabrication and secondhand or thirdhand retellings of the same, was a social media frenzy and a significant amount of congressional and executive time and energy spent on investigating these so-called claims—as if we didn’t have anything better to do.” He said, “the modern media cycle drives stories faster than sound research, science, and peer review time lines can validate them” yet that the “talented” AARO team that he departed is “striving in collaboration with the armed forces, intelligence community, government agencies, national laboratories, scientific community, academic community—and soon the general public—to collect and analyze hard, measurable data…” (Kirkpatrick, 2024a ).

In early 2024, AARO, the office that Kirkpatrick directed in the Department of Defense, released a report on past U.S. governmental investigations into UAP. Overall, it was opaque, with limited data, little discussion of criteria for categories or evaluation, and unclear methods of peer review for findings. However, it did state, “AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology.” Elsewhere, it also dismissed “aliens.” Nevertheless, AARO is supporting the advent of new sensors for deployment to better capture data on these unknowns. Some witnesses and whistleblowers disputed AARO findings. There are also conflicting reports as to whether AARO engaged prominent whistleblowers during its investigation.

Questions remain about evidence. What would meet evidentiary standards for undefined categories? Is this report asserting absence of evidence, or evidence of absence? The report acknowledges that significant percentages of cases remain unexplained, and it did not review cases under scrutiny in congressional hearings. The report included more “conspiracy” rhetoric. There is little room to reconcile positions of Kirkpatrick and AARO with whistleblowers—it would seem that one party of the two is extremely wrong. With continued bipartisan frustration from Congress, it is unclear what this overview report clarifies. The public remains subjected to a resilient status quo (AARO, 2024 ; Hodge, 2024 ; Rogan, 2024 ; Tingley, 2024 ).

As if his feelings were somehow unclear, to coincide with the release of the AARO report Kirkpatrick wrote yet another opinion piece denouncing “the distraction of conspiracy theories” in the title (Kirkpatrick, 2024b ). It is unknown whether Kirkpatrick intentionally, or unwittingly, uses “conspiracy” labels here and elsewhere for specific influence (Danesi, 2023 ; Demata et al. 2022 ; Dentith, 2024 ).

Major news outlets seem more inclined to repeat assertions from AARO or Kirkpatrick rather than report on what remains unresolved (Baker, 2024 ; Barnes, 2022 ; Bergen, 2024 ). Without the lag time or rigor of peer review, a factor Kirkpatrick mentioned, news coverage is as prone to present clickbait as it is to reassure the public that this is a topic worth dismissing. As new scholarship percolates, where legacy media has abdicated rigorous inquiry, an alternative media appealing to an expanse of the political spectrum has engaged an interested and wide audience on this debate (“ Last Week Tonight with John Oliver ,” 2024 ; Ball & Enjeti, 2023 ; Ford, 2023 ).

The ultimate role of legacy intelligentsia remains to be seen. If needed, a course change in scholarship would take time on such a long-beleaguered topic. Nevertheless, this shift seems nascent across disciplines (De la Torre, 2024 ; Eghigian, 2024 ; Krame et al. 2024 ; Medina et al. 2023 ; Villarroel et al. 2022 ). Among other events, during a small, invitation-only meeting, a very new think-tank comprised of personnel from academic, military, and intelligence communities presented thoughts to shape this growing conversation, including some conjecture about possible roles for academia in averting consequences of “catastrophic disclosure” (Norton, 2023 ).

In additional governmental consideration of UAP, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense issued a separate report on UAP responses in January 2024. One section of the report studied why the “DoD does not have a comprehensive, coordinated approach to address UAP.” This report found that the “DoD has no overarching UAP policy and, as a result, it lacks assurance that national security and flight safety threats to the United States from UAP have been identified and mitigated” (Inspector General, 2023 ).

On a few issues, including whether multiple, credible witnesses have approached Congress directly, high-ranking senators differ from some statements by Kirkpatrick and AARO. In mid-2023, Sen. Rubio stated, “I will say there are people who have come forward to share information with our committee over the last couple of years” with “firsthand knowledge, or firsthand claims of certain things” and that he tried to be “cautious” as he felt “protective” of some current government employees who were “fearful” for their careers or for “harm coming to them.” He said Congress owed them a “mature” intake of information without “prejudgment,” as some of the witnesses had held “very high clearances.” Rubio continued, “You do ask yourself what incentive would so many people with that kind of qualification—these are serious people—have to come forward and make something up”. Sen. Rubio added that, “one of two things here are true, either what he is saying is partially true or entirely true, or we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government who are crazy” (“Rubio,” 2023 ).

After the Schumer-Rounds UAP amendment was diluted in committee within the House, both senators made a colloquy on the U.S. Senate floor in December 2023 about the importance of their unique amendment. Schumer, noting the interest Americans hold in the topic, said that “with that curiosity comes the risk for confusion, misinformation, and mistrust especially if the government isn’t prepared to be transparent. The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong and additionally breeds mistrust. We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which if true is a violation of laws…” He continued, saying, it was “beyond disappointing that the House has refused to work with us on all the important elements of the UAP Disclosure Act…” Without their provisions, Schumer stated, “declassification of UAP records will be largely up to the same entities that have blocked and obfuscated their disclosure for decades.”

Sen. Rounds agreed with these sentiments. In his remarks, he offered regrets that their amendment had been diminished, especially aspects such as the “government-wide review board composed of expert citizens, presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, to control the process of reviewing the records and recommending to the President what records should be released immediately or postponed, and a requirement as a transparency measure for the government to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people” (Schumer on UAPs, 2023 ; Senate Democrats, 2023 ). The public has still not seen whatever it is that inspires senators to say such things in prepared remarks in front of live microphones.

What emerged in the final 2024 NDAA legislation were, nevertheless, multiple sections that did directly address “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.” Overall, these facets included provisions pertaining to “records collection,” “public disclosure” of data, “grounds for postponement of public disclosure” of UAP files, and the “periodic review” for “downgrading and declassification” of UAP files. Further, the NDAA included many new limitations on applications of funding in intelligence, defense, and their contractors. This included “security” for “Government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft,” “analyzing such craft, or pieces or components thereof” to study materials, manufacture, origin, performance, “managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise,” “actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance,” and the “development of propulsion” that is new from UAP studies (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, 2023 ).

In January 2024, House members met in a classified setting with Thomas Monheim, Inspector General of the U.S. Intelligence Community, who briefed representatives on UAP whistleblowers. After this, Rep. Moskowitz (D-FL) stated, “This is the first real briefing that we’ve had that we’ve now made, I would say, progress on some of the claims Mr. Grusch has made.” That week, Reps. Garcia (D-CA) and Grothman (R-WI), who attended this briefing, introduced new legislation to protect civilian aviation personnel for reporting UAP incidents to the FAA, which would be required to pass reports to a Pentagon UAP office (Becket, 2024 ). After this briefing, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) said that “there is a concerted effort to conceal as much information as possible.” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) said, “unfortunately, I didn’t get the answers I was hoping for.” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said the process was like playing “whack-a-mole” (Mitchell, 2024 ). Leaving that same briefing, Rep. Luna (R-FL) said, ‘I think it’s incredibly important to listen to the specific words that Grusch uses, you know, Grusch never said “extraterrestrial” or “alien,” he said “interdimensional”’ (Pergram, 2024 ). Of this context, Rep. Burlison (R-MO) asserted that “Regardless of what it is – aliens, angels, or just us, right? … Regardless of what it is…we are being blocked from information, that the information is being specifically compartmentalized, that’s violating federal law” (Desrochers, 2024 ).

In July 2024, as the next NDAA forms, Sens. Rounds and Schumer have re-introduced a very similar amendement to their UAP proposal from 2023 (UAP Disclosure Act of 2024, 2024 ). This includes an entire section titled, “Disclosure of Recovered Technologies of Unknown Origin and Biological Evidence of Non-Human Intelligence.” In May 2024, Rep. Robert Garcia submitted comparable draft language in the House. Tellingly, Garcia also submitted an amendment to expand AARO access to Title 50 clearances, which would expressly permit AARO access to intelligence agency data they may have missed (Amendment to Rules Committee Print 118-36, U.S. House, 2024a ; Amendment to Rules Committee Print 118-36, U.S. House, 2024b ). Further, as announced by Sens. Warner and Rubio, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence passed the 2025 Intelligence Authorization Act, which will “require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena reporting and Federal agency coordination” (Rubio, 2024 ; Warner, 2024 ).The pace and increasing specificity of these developments from some of the most influential politicians in the U.S, many of whom also have access to highly classified information, even more firmly raises the question of not only how the professoriate should engage, but what role it should play in assessing and researching UAP. How to help a public decipher new information is arguably more important than ever. It is necessary but not sufficient to ask how we know any emergent datapoints. Why are we encountering the information that we do from the venues that offer it? Why now? What is the cost to quality intellectual inquiry from the cacophony of signals from the U.S. government? Who benefits from the public curation, or private sequestration, of information vital to comprehending this topic? Who suffers from this selectivity?

If nothing else, the consideration of such recent information and other closed-door events—that is, who benefits from how the UAP narrative has developed and who does not—demands scrutiny from a wide range of capable minds. Some faculty in our study do not wish to engage the subject. Others think they are capable and, it seems, are willing to vigilantly do so. When it works, academic freedom is multidimensional—individual scholars may choose how to engage or not.

Readers may think these current events amount to an elaborate snafu or psy-op. Or, they may think they amount to a profound possibility for human history. Clamor for clarity should thus crescendo, either way. In many quotes, one of the only common interests for groups with competing claims about UAP is that they all seek input—or even an imprimatur—from academia. How the professoriate will ultimately respond to these many unknowns remains to be seen. Even if unpopular to some, employing the scrutiny of expertise because it amounts to something consequential, while reasonably withholding conclusions, might prove prudent.

Solving a Rubik’s Cube is difficult in the dark. Shall we turn on more light? In the spirit of academic freedom, which is currently “under fire” (Cole, 2021 ), let us grant peers the space to conscientiously follow their curiosity and concerns on these matters. Regardless of where current questions lead, perhaps we will thank them later.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author [MEY]. The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.

All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (2024) Report on the historical record of U.S. government involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Vol. 1 . Department of Defense. www.manuals.health.mil/pages/DisplayManualHtmlFile/2023-12-22/ChangeOnly/TO15/C18S4.html

Alter J (2021) His very best: Jimmy Carter, a life . Simon and Schuster

Amendment to Rules Committee Print 118-36, U.S. House (2024a) https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/GARCRO_115_xml240529153551283.pdf

Amendment to Rules Committee Print 118-36, U.S. House (2024b) https://amendmentsrules.house.gov/amendments/NDAA%20Title%2050240531103147481.pdf

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2016) Public research universities: understanding the financial model. The Lincoln Project: Excellence and Access in Public Higher Education

An Act, S. 2226, 118th Congress 1st (2023)

Andresen J, Chon-Torres OA (2022) Extraterrestrial intelligence: academic and societal implications (J Andresen, Ed). Cambridge Scholars Publishing

April 21, 2024: UFOs (9) (2024) In Last week tonight with John Oliver . HBO. https://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver/season-11/9-april-21-2024-uf-os

Baker N (2024) No, aliens haven’t visited the earth. Intelligencer . https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/leslie-kean-ufo-sightings-aliens.html

Ball K, Enjeti S (2023) https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/breaking-points-with-krystal-a-1906997/episodes/122723-tucker-carlson-sounds-o-195998447

Barna S, Wang J, & Patil M (2024) Implications of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Amendment in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) . Inside Government Contracts. https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2024/01/implications-of-the-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-uap-amendment-in-the-2024-national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa/

Barnes JE (2022) Many military U.F.O. reports are just foreign spying or airborne trash . New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/us/politics/ufo-military-reports.html

Becket S (2024) Lawmakers investigating UAPs, or UFOs, remain frustrated after closed-door briefing with government watchdog. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uap-ufo-briefing-house-inspector-general-intelligence-community/

Bender B (2021) “A total lack of focus”: lawmaker on a mission to compel Pentagon to take UFOs seriously. Politico . https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/25/lawmaker-pentagon-ufo-514287

Bergen P (2024) Opinion: the actual hidden truth about UFOs . CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/opinions/ufos-actual-truth-bergen-german/index.html

Bernard J (2024) ENTRETIEN. «3% des phénomènes aérospatiaux étudiés par le Geipan sont inexpliqués» selon son directeur . Ladepeche.Fr . https://www.ladepeche.fr/2024/01/29/entretien-3-des-phenomenes-aerospatiaux-etudies-par-le-geipan-sont-inexpliques-selon-son-directeur-11729851.php

Bird CE (2022) Underfunding of research in women’s health issues is the biggest missed opportunity in health care . The Rand Blog. https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/02/underfunding-of-research-in-womens-health-issues-is.html

Black L (2015) Northwestern University bioethics professor resigns over censorship claim. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-northwestern-university-alice-dreger-resigns-met-20150825-story.html

Bockman C (2014) Why the French state has a team of UFO hunters . BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29755919

Carnegie Classifications (2022) The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%2215%22%7D&limit=0,50&orderby=sortname&start_page=standard.php

Carson A (2021) Face the Nation [Face the Nation] . CBS. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andre-carson-ufos-congress-hearings-face-the-nation/

Chen S (2021) China military uses AI to track rapidly increasing UFOs . https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3136078/china-military-uses-ai-track-rapidly-increasing-ufos

Chow D, Schwartz G (2021) UFOs are about to make their way to the U.S. Senate. Here’s what to know . NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/ufos-are-make-way-us-senate-know-rcna973

Cillizza C (2021) Barack Obama just said something *very* interesting about UFOs—CNNPolitics . CNN Politics. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/barack-obama-ufos/index.html

Cole JR (2021) Academic freedom under fire. Science 374(6573):1300. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn5447

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Corden J (2022) President Bill Clinton on the Clinton Global Initiative and aliens. In The Late Late Show with James Corden . CBS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQNevl2BuxM

Cowen T (n.d.) John Brennan on Life in the CIA (111). Retrieved 14 July 2021, from https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/john-o-brennan-tyler-cowen-cia-government-spy-ad9092d5a47b

C-SPAN (2022) Hearing on government investigation of UFOs | C-SPAN.org . https://www.c-span.org/video/?520133-1/hearing-government-investigation-ufos

Cuomo C (Director) (2021) Cuomo Prime Time . CNN. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2105/17/CPT.01.html

Danesi M (2023) Politics, lies and conspiracy theories: a cognitive linguistic perspective . Routledge. https://books.google.com/books/about/Politics_Lies_and_Conspiracy_Theories.html?id=49GRzwEACAAJ

Davenport C (2022) NASA joins the hunt for UFOs . Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/09/nasa-ufo-uap-extraterrestrial-space/

De la Torre GG (2024) Psychological aspects in unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) witnesses. Int J Astrobiol 23:e4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1473550423000289

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Demata M, Zorzi V, Zottola A (2022) Conspiracy theory discourses . John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://books.google.com/books/about/Conspiracy_Theory_Discourses.html?id=oNFUzwEACAAJ

Dentith MRX (2024) The philosophy of conspiracy theories: Concepts, methods and theory . Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Philosophy-of-Conspiracy-Theories-Concepts-Methods-and-Theory/Dentith/p/book/9781032711386

Desiderio A, Bertrand N (2020) Intelligence disputes fuel rare public acrimony among Gang of Eight. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/29/intelligence-disputes-gang-of-eight-387014

Desrochers D (2024) MO lawmaker said a classified briefing didn’t bring him closer to the truth about aliens. Kansas City Star. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article284183338.html

Diaz J (2023) Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs a bill banning DEI initiatives in public colleges . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/15/1176210007/florida-ron-desantis-dei-ban-diversity

Dick SJ (2015) History, discovery, analogy: Three approaches to the impact of discovering life beyond Earth. In The impact of discovering life beyond Earth . Cambridge University Press

Dillman D (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the total design method for surveys . Wiley

Eghigian G (2024) After the flying saucers came: a global history of the UFO phenomenon . Oxford University Press

European Parliament (2024) Streaming agenda . EU Multimedia Centre. https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/webstreaming?view=day&d=2024-02-05

Finley SC (2022) In and out of this world: material and extraterrestrial bodies in the Nation of Islam . Duke University Press

Fisk NM, Atun R (2009) Systematic analysis of research underfunding in maternal and perinatal health. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 116(3):347–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02027.x

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Flaherty C (2015) AAUP report alleges violations of academic freedom, due process in new report on professor’s termination by LSU . Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/02/aaup-report-alleges-violations-academic-freedom-due-process-new-report-professors

Flaherty C (2021) A template for academic freedom . Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/12/15/professors-promote-resolution-academic-freedom

Flaherty C (2022) Anthropologist says she’s being punished for views on bones . Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/15/anthropologist-says-shes-being-punished-views-bones

Ford M (Director) (2023) UFOs and Congress, our exclusive interview with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand . https://www.deezer.com/en/show/5838717

Former Navy rear admiral supports UFO whistleblower claims (2023) In NewsNation . News Nation. https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/navy-officer-supports-ufo-claims/

Friscourt B (2023) Astronomers, scientists, and experts convene in Paris, France, to study aerial mysteries . The Debrief. https://thedebrief.org/astronomers-scientists-and-experts-convene-in-paris-france-to-study-aerial-mysteries/

From slavery to socialism, new legislation restricts what teachers can discuss. (2022) In Fresh Air . National Public Broadcasting. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/03/1077878538/legislation-restricts-what-teachers-can-discuss

Gottlieb FD (Director) (2024) Hvad ved tidligere præsident-rådgiver om UFO’er? In Flyvende tallerken . Danmarks Radio. https://www.dr.dk/lyd/special-radio/flyvende-tallerken/flyvende-tallerken-2024/flyvende-tallerken-hvad-ved-tidligere-praesident-raadgiver-om-ufo-er-16122492903

Hendrix S (2024) Ohio State student, faculty groups call out universities’ response to Thursday’s protest. Columbus Dispatch . https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2024/05/02/israel-hamas-war-ceasefire-gaza-ohio-state-university-protest/73539770007/

Hodge R (2024) Pentagon report denies UFOs are aliens. Experts accuse the government of misrepresenting the truth. Salon . https://www.salon.com/2024/03/14/pentagon-report-denies-ufos-are-aliens-experts-accuse-the-government-of-misrepresenting-the-truth/

Holpuch A (2021) Marco Rubio urges US to take UFOs seriously ahead of government report . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/17/ufo-report-marco-rubio-urges-us-take-seriously-uap

Inspector General (2023) Unclassified Summary of Report No. DODIG-2023-109, “Evaluation of the DoD’s actions regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” August 15, 2023 (pp 5–6). U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Article/3496071/evaluation-of-the-dods-actions-regarding-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-dodig/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodig.mil%2Freports.html%2FArticle%2F3496071%2Fevaluation-of-the-dods-actions-regarding-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-dodig%2F

Israel L (1995) Mack’s research is under scrutiny . The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1995/4/17/macks-research-is-under-scrutiny-pdean/

Japan lawmakers to create group for government probes into UFOs (2024) The Japan Times . https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/05/28/japan/politics/japan-lawmakers-group-ufos/

Kean L, Blumenthal R, & Blumenthal LK and R (2023) Intelligence officials say U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin. The Debrief. https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Kepner L, Heath K (2024) Faculty, students at protest call for UT President Hartzell to resign after police response . Austin American Statesman. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2024/04/25/ut-austin-protest-students-faculty-want-president-jay-hartzell-resign-police-response-arrests/73458498007/

Kirkpatrick S (2024a) Here’s what I learned as the U.S. Government’s UFO hunter . Sci Am. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-what-i-learned-as-the-u-s-governments-ufo-hunter/

Kirkpatrick S (2024b) We need to investigate UFOs—But without the distraction of conspiracy theories . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-need-to-investigate-ufos-but-without-the-distraction-of-conspiracy/

Krame G, Vivoda V, & Bar-On T (2024) Casting ambiguity: securitization of unidentified anomalous phenomena in the United States. Alternatives . https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754241256845

Laslo M (2023) UFO whistleblower, meet a conspiracy-loving Congress . Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/ufo-whistleblower-us-congress-investigations/

Lawsuit Challenges Classroom Censorship (2021) American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/news/lawsuit-challenges-classroom-censorship

Legal cases affecting academic speech (2009) American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/get-involved/issue-campaigns/speak-speak-out-protect-faculty-voice/legal-cases-affecting-academic

Lepselter S (2016) The resonance of unseen things: poetics, power, captivity, and UFOs in the American uncanny . University of Michigan Press

Lomas T (2023) A global picture of unidentified anomalous phenomena: Towards a cross-cultural understanding of a potentially universal issue. Int Soc Sci J https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12484

Lombart G (2023) David Grusch, lanceur d’alerte sur des ovnis: «Ça peut être extraterrestre ou autre chose mais pas humain». leparisien.fr . https://www.leparisien.fr/sciences/david-grusch-lanceur-dalerte-sur-des-ovnis-ca-peut-etre-extraterrestre-ou-autre-chose-mais-pas-humain-07-06-2023-P73S2REKZJDGNGCEJQBDEIQJTU.php

Luscombe R (2024) Pentagon ex-UFO chief says conspiracy theorists in government drive spending. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/27/sean-kirkpatrick-pentagon-ufo-conspiracy-theory-myths

MacLeod A (Ed) (2019) Propaganda in the information age: still manufacturing consent . Routledge

Medina RM, Brewer SC, & Kirkpatrick SM (2023) An environmental analysis of public UAP sightings and sky view potential. Sci Rep , 13:22213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49527-x

Mellon C (2023) If the government has UFO crash materials, it’s time to reveal them . POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/03/ufo-crash-materials-intelligence-00100077

Ministero della Difesa: Aeronautica Militare, Repubblica Italiana (2024). Oggetti Volanti Non Identificat . Aeronautica Militare. https://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/ovni/

Mitchell E (2024) Classified UFO briefing: House members emerge with mixed feelings . The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4406059-classified-ufo-briefing-house-members-mixed-feelings/

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Pub. L. No. 117–81 (2021) https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1605/text

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117–263 (2022) https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7776/text

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, Pub. L. No. H.R.2670, 1312 (2023) https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text

Norton T (2023) Is US on the verge of “catastrophic” UFO leak? What we know. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/catastrophic-ufo-leak-uap-aliens-us-army-colonel-karl-nell-1846123

O’Connor T (2022) U.S. military creates new “Anomaly Resolution Office” to investigate UFOs . Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-creates-new-anomaly-resolution-office-investigate-ufos-1726540

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (2021) Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (p 9). https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

Open/Closed: To receive testimony on the mission, activities, oversight, and budget of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office: Hearing before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES (2023). https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-mission-activities-oversight-and-budget-of-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office

Otis D (2023) Document reveals first known Canadian UFO study in nearly 30 years now underway. CTVNews. https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/document-reveals-first-known-canadian-ufo-study-in-nearly-30-years-now-underway-1.6293124

Oxford Reference (2022) Academic freedom . https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110916142807477

Pasulka DW (2023) Controlling the lore: a survey of UFO folklore in the United States. In S Borkataky-Varma & A Michael Ullrey (Eds), Living Folk Religions . Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Living-Folk-Religions/Borkataky-Varma-Ullrey/p/book/9781032190419

Pergram C (2024) Close encounters of congressional kind: Lawmakers struggle to grasp alleged “interdimensional” nature of UFOs [Text.Article]. Fox News; Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/close-encounters-congressional-kind-lawmakers-struggle-grasp-alleged-interdimensional-nature-ufos

Peters T (2011) The implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion. Philos Trans R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1936):644–655. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0234

Pilkington M (2010) Mirage men: an adventure into paranoia, espionage, psychological warfare, and UFOs . Skyhorse

Powell M (2021a) National professors’ union investigating Linfield University firing . https://www.opb.org/article/2021/05/18/oregon-linfield-university-investigation-professor/

Powell M (Director) (2021b) Suspended professor sues Pacific University. In Opb . https://www.opb.org/article/2021/06/01/pacific-university-richard-paxton-lawsuit-suspension/

Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast) - YouTube (2023). https://www.youtube.com/

Rep. Burchett and Oversight Committee Members on Upcoming Hearing on UAP. (2023) C-SPAN. https://www.c-span.org/video/?529468-1/rep-burchett-oversight-committee-members-upcoming-hearing-uap

Reyes J (2024) Professor detained during protest concerned with free speech on campus . Ajc. https://www.ajc.com/news/professor-detained-during-protest-concerned-with-free-speech-on-campus/2WBMUXHY7BES5GVZNDIVD4AZSM/

Roche D (2023) Joe Biden to finally break silence on UFOs in White House speech . Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-breaks-silence-ufos-white-house-speech-1781681

Rogan T (2021) Why Kirsten Gillibrand’s UFO amendment deserves bipartisan support . Restoring America. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/why-kirsten-gillibrands-ufo-amendment-deserves-bipartisan-support

Rogan T (2023) UFOs and the White House’s “no evidence of extraterrestrials” distraction . Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ufos-and-the-white-houses-no-evidence-of-extraterrestrials-distraction

Rogan T (2024) Pentagon’s UFO agency report shows analytic bias . Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2910991/pentagon-ufo-agency-report-shows-analytic-bias/

Rogers K (2023) Inside the Hunt for U.F.O.s at the End of the World . New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/us/politics/ufos-alaska-deadhorse.html

Romo V, Chappell B (2023) U.S. recovered non-human “biologics” from UFO crash sites, former intel official says . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190390376/ufo-hearing-non-human-biologics-uaps

Rubio, M (2024). Senate Intelligence Committee passes the FY25 Intelligence Authorization Act . Senator Rubio. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/senate-intelligence-committee-passes-the-fy25-intelligence-authorization-act/

Rubio: Recent UFO whistleblower isn’t the only one (2023) NewsNation . https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/rubio-recent-ufo-whistleblower-isnt-the-only-one/

SA 797 (2023) S2953. https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2023/07/13/169/120/CREC-2023-07-13-pt1-PgS2953.pdf

Sabagh Z, Hall NC, Saroyan A (2018) Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educ Res 60(2):131–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1461573

Article   Google Scholar  

Saldaña J (2015) The coding manual for qualitative researchers . SAGE Publications

Schumer on UAPs (2023) C-SPAN. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5097888/user-clip-schumer-uaps

Seligman L (2024) Former UFO boss: Pentagon needs to be less secretive. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/06/former-ufo-boss-pentagon-kirkpatrick-00139880

Senate Democrats (2023) Majority leader schumer and republican senator mike rounds floor colloquy on unidentified anomalous phenomena provisions in the NDAA And future legislation on UAPs . https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-and-republican-senator-mike-rounds-floor-colloquy-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-provisions-in-the-ndaa-and-future-legislation-on-uaps

Shabad R (2023) White House announces interagency team to address “unidentified aerial objects” . NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-announces-interagency-team-address-objects-sky-rcna70416

Shellenberger M, Mohar A, Smith P (2023) Dozens of government UFO whistleblowers have given testimony to Congress, Pentagon, and Inspectors General, say sources . Public

Shibley R (2021) One Georgetown Law professor fired, one resigns after conversation about black students’ academic performance accidentally recorded . FIRE. https://www.thefire.org/one-georgetown-law-professor-fired-one-resigns-after-conversation-about-black-students-academic-performance-accidentally-recorded/

Testino L (2022) “This university is underfunded”: On his second day, new U of M president Hardgrave looks far ahead . The Commercial Appeal. https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/education/2022/04/05/president-bill-hardgrave-looks-far-ahead/7272821001/

Text - S.2103 - 118th Congress (2023–2024): Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (2023). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2103/text

The Graduate School: Postdoctoral Affairs. (nd) Grants for historically underfunded disciplines: Postdoctoral affairs . Northwestern University. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://postdocs.northwestern.edu/resources-support/opa-grants1/grants-for-historically-underfunded-disciplines.html

Thebault R (2021) Thanks to Trump-era covid relief bill, a UFO report may soon be public—and it’ll be big, ex-official says . Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/23/ufo-report-covid-bill/

Timm, T (2023) The US government should tell the public what it knows about UFOs . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/13/us-government-ufo-transparency-bill-uaps

Tingley B (2024) Pentagon UFO office developing “Gremlin” sensors to help identify anomalies in orbit . Space.Com. https://www.space.com/pentagon-ufo-uap-office-aaro-sensors-anomalies-orbit

UAP Disclosure Act of (2023) S.Amdt.797 to S.2226-118th Congress, United States Senate, S4943 (2023). https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/797/text

UAP Disclosure Act of (2024) S.Amdt.2610 to S.4638-118th Congress, United States Senate (2023). https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/2610/text

University of Virginia Center for Politics (Director) (2021) Interview with Bill Nelson October 19, 2021 . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hH1XEqKlTs

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2021) Digest of Education Statistics, 2019 (NCES 2021-009). https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37

U.S. Department of Defense (2023) Melissa Dalton Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs . U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3296177/melissa-dalton-assistant-secretary-of-defense-for-homeland-defense-and-hemisphe/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense.gov%2FNews%2FTranscripts%2FTranscript%2FArticle%2F3296177%2Fmelissa-dalton-assistant-secretary-of-defense-for-homeland-defense-and-hemisphe%2F

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020) Employees and Instructional Staff—How many full-time instructional staff are employed by degree-granting postsecondary institutions? Trend Generator. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/build-table/5/51?rid=164&cid=162

Villarroel B, Mattsson L, Guergouri H, Solano E, Geier S, Nnaemeka Dom O, Ward MJ (2022) A glint in the eye: photographic plate archive searches for non-terrestrial artefacts. Acta Astronaut 194:106–113

Warner MR (2024) Senate Intelligence Committee passes FY25 Intelligence Authorization Act. Mark R. Warner. https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2024/5/senate-intelligence-committee-passes-fy25-intelligence-authorization-act

Washington National Cathedral (Director) (2021) 11.10.21 Our Future in Space: Ignatius Forum . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWyPk_f8aAA

Washington Post Live (2021a) UFOs & national security with Luis Elizondo, former director, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program . https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2021/06/08/transcript-ufos-national-security-with-luis-elizondo-former-director-advanced-aerospace-threat-identification-program/

Washington Post Live (2021b) “UFO” A Conversation with Mark Monroe & Greg Eghigian, PhD . Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2021/08/06/transcript-ufo-conversation-with-mark-monroe-greg-eghigian-phd/

We are not alone: The UFO whistleblower speaks (2023) NewsNation . https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/we-are-not-alone-the-ufo-whistleblower-speaks/

Whitford E (2021) State higher ed funding for next year looks like a mixed bag . Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/16/governors-propose-cuts-increases-and-other-changes-higher-ed-funding-depending-state

Yingling ME, Yingling CW, Bell BA (2023) Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena. Hum Soc Sci Commun 10(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01746-3

Youssef N, Wise L (2023) Pentagon’s unidentified-object office is underfunded. Wall Street Journal. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/us/politics/ufos-alaska-deadhorse.html

ZDFheute Nachrichten (Director) (2024) UFOs und Aliens: Geheime Funde auf der Erde? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4PaGisGpf4

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the faculty who took time out of their full schedules to engage with this topic. We offer special thanks to Dr. Bethany A. Bell of the University of Virginia who collaborated on an earlier phase of this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Marissa E. Yingling & Charlton W. Yingling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MEY and CWY conceived of the research; MEY and CWY designed the survey; MEY conducted the survey; MEY analyzed the survey results; CWY and MEY wrote the main text. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marissa E. Yingling .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Authors obtained approval for the survey and methodology for this study from the Social/Behavioral/Educational Committee of the University of Louisville Institutional Review Board (Reference Number: 740498). The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

The consent process involved unsigned informed consentof all participants at the time of their participation, which ranged between February 24, 2022 and April 27, 2022. Given the minimal risk to participants and that research met specific criteria outlined in the regulations, consent was obtained via preamble to the survey.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplemental material, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yingling, M.E., Yingling, C.W. Academic freedom and the unknown: credibility, criticism, and inquiry among the professoriate. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 987 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03351-4

Download citation

Received : 14 July 2023

Accepted : 13 June 2024

Published : 01 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03351-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.84(1); 2020 Jan

A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research

Jessica l. johnson.

a William Carey University School of Pharmacy, Biloxi, Mississippi

Donna Adkins

Sheila chauvin.

b Louisiana State University, School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana

Attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices for qualitative research design as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in health professions educational scholarship are presented. A research question must be clear and focused and supported by a strong conceptual framework, both of which contribute to the selection of appropriate research methods that enhance trustworthiness and minimize researcher bias inherent in qualitative methodologies. Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question. Researcher reflexivity, essentially a researcher’s insight into their own biases and rationale for decision-making as the study progresses, is critical to rigor. This article reviews common standards of rigor, quality scholarship criteria, and best practices for qualitative research from design through dissemination.

INTRODUCTION

Within the past 20 years, qualitative research in health professions education has increased significantly, both in practice and publication. Today, one can pick up most any issue of a wide variety of health professions education journals and find at least one article that includes some type of qualitative research, whether a full study or the inclusion of a qualitative component within a quantitative or mixed methods study. Simultaneously, there have been recurrent calls for enhancing rigor and quality in qualitative research.

As members of the academic community, we share responsibility for ensuring rigor in qualitative research, whether as researchers who design and implement, manuscript reviewers who critique, colleagues who discuss and learn from each other, or scholarly teachers who draw upon results to enhance and innovate education. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to summarize standards of rigor and suggested best practices for designing, conducting, and reporting high-quality qualitative research. To begin, Denzin and Lincoln’s definition of qualitative research, a long-standing cornerstone in the field, provides a useful foundation for summarizing quality standards and best practices:

Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interview; artifacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe the routine and problematic moments and meanings in individual lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretative practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretative practice in any study. 1

In recent years, multiple publications have synthesized quality criteria and recommendations for use by researchers and peer reviewers alike, often in the form of checklists. 2-6 Some authors have raised concerns about the use of such checklists and adherence to strict, universal criteria because they do not afford sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse approaches and multiple interpretive practices often represented in qualitative studies. 7-11 They argue that a strict focus on using checklists of specific technical criteria may stifle the diversity and multiplicity of practices that are so much a part of achieving quality and rigor within the qualitative paradigm. As an alternative, some of these authors have published best practice guidelines for use by researchers and peer reviewers to achieve and assess methodological rigor and research quality. 12,13

Some journals within the field of health professions education have also established best practice guidance, as opposed to strict criteria or a checklist, for qualitative research. These have been disseminated as guiding questions or evaluation categories. In 2015, Academic Medicine produced an expanded second edition of a researcher/author manual that includes specific criteria with extensive explanations and examples. 14 Still others have disseminated best practice guidelines through a series of methodological articles within journal publications. 2

In this article, attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices are presented as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in a step-wise approach.

BEST PRACTICES: STEP-WISE APPROACH

Step 1: identifying a research topic.

Identifying and developing a research topic is comprised of two major tasks: formulating a research question, and developing a conceptual framework to support the study. Formulating a research question is often stimulated by real-life observations, experiences, or events in the researcher’s local setting that reflect a perplexing problem begging for systematic inquiry. The research question begins as a problem statement or set of propositions that describe the relationship among certain concepts, behaviors, or experiences. Agee 15 and others 16,17 note that initial questions are usually too broad in focus and too vague regarding the specific context of the study to be answerable and researchable. Creswell reminds us that initial qualitative research questions guide inquiry, but they often change as the author’s understanding of the issue develops throughout the study. 16 Developing and refining a primary research question focused on both the phenomena of interest and the context in which it is situated is essential to research rigor and quality.

Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff identified six criteria applicable to assessing the quality of scholarship. 18,19 Now commonly referred to as the Glassick Criteria ( Table 1 ), these critical attributes outline the essential elements of any scholarly approach and serve as a general research framework for developing research questions and designing studies. The first two criteria, clear purpose and adequate preparation, are directly related to formulating effective research questions and a strong conceptual framework.

Glassick’s Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Scholarship of a Research Study 18

Generating and refining a qualitative research question requires thorough, systematic, and iterative review of the literature, and the use of those results to establish a clear context and foundation for the question and study design. Using an iterative approach, relevant concepts, principles, theories or models, and prior evidence are identified to establish what is known, and more importantly, what is not known. The iterative process contributes to forming a better research question, the criteria for which can be abbreviated by the acronym FINER, ie, f easible, i nteresting, n ovel, e thical, and r elevant, that is answerable and researchable, in terms of research focus, context specificity, and the availability of time, logistics, and resources to carry out the study. Developing a FINER research question is critical to study rigor and quality and should not be rushed, as all other aspects of research design depend on the focus and clarity of the research question(s) guiding the study. 15 Agee provides clear and worthwhile additional guidance for developing qualitative research questions. 15

Reflexivity, the idea that a researcher’s preconceptions and biases can influence decisions and actions throughout qualitative research activities, is a critical aspect of rigor even at the earliest stages of the study. A researcher’s background, beliefs, and experiences may affect any aspect of the research from choosing which specific question to investigate through determining how to present the results. Therefore, even at this early stage, the potential effect of researcher bias and any ethical considerations should be acknowledged and addressed. That is, how will the question’s influence on study design affect participants’ lives, position the researcher in relationship with others, or require specific methods for addressing potential areas of research bias and ethical considerations?

A conceptual framework is then actively constructed to provide a logical and convincing argument for the research. The framework defines and justifies the research question, the methodology selected to answer that question, and the perspectives from which interpretation of results and conclusions will be made. 5,6,20 Developing a well-integrated conceptual framework is essential to establishing a research topic based upon a thorough and integrated review of relevant literature (addressing Glassick criteria #1 and #2: clear purpose and adequate preparation). Key concepts, principles, assumptions, best practices, and theories are identified, defined, and integrated in ways that clearly demonstrate the problem statement and corresponding research question are answerable, researchable, and important to advancing thinking and practice.

Ringsted, Hodges, and Sherpbier describe three essential parts to an effective conceptual framework: theories and/or concepts and principles relevant to the phenomenon of interest; what is known and unknown from prior work, observations, and examples; and the researcher’s observations, ideas, and suppositions regarding the research problem statement and question. 21 Lingard describes four types of unknowns to pursue during literature review: what no one knows; what is not yet well understood; what controversy or conflicting results, understandings, or perspectives exist; and what are unproven assumptions. 22 In qualitative research, these unknowns are critical to achieving a well-developed conceptual framework and a corresponding rigorous study design.

Recent contributions from Ravitch and colleagues present best practices in developing frameworks for conceptual and methodological coherence within a study design, regardless of the research approach. 23,24 Their recommendations and arguments are highly relevant to qualitative research. Figure 1 reflects the primary components of a conceptual framework adapted from Ravitch and Carl 23 and how all components contribute to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice. Notice that each element of the framework interacts with and influences other elements in a dynamic and interactive process from the beginning to the end of a research project. The intersecting bidirectional arrows represent direct relationships between elements as they relate to specific aspects of a qualitative research study.

Adaptation of Ravitch and Carl’s Components of a Conceptual Framework 23

Maxwell also provides useful guidance for developing an effective conceptual framework specific to the qualitative research paradigm. 17 The 2015 second edition of the Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts 14 and work by Ravitch and colleagues 23,24 provide specific guidance for applying the conceptual framework to each stage of the research process to enhance rigor and quality. Quality criteria for assessing a study’s problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question include the following: introduction builds a logical case and provides context for the problem statement; problem statement is clear and well-articulated; conceptual framework is explicit and justified; research purpose and/or question is clearly stated; and constructs being investigated are clearly identified and presented. 14,24,25 As best practice guidelines, these criteria facilitate quality and rigor while providing sufficient flexibility in how each is achieved and demonstrated.

While a conceptual framework is important to rigor in qualitative research, Huberman and Miles caution qualitative researchers about developing and using a framework to the extent that it influences qualitative design deductively because this would violate the very principles of induction that define the qualitative research paradigm. 25 Our profession’s recent emphasis on a holistic admissions process for pharmacy students provides a reasonable example of inductive and deductive reasoning and their respective applications in qualitative and quantitative research studies. Principles of inductive reasoning are applied when a qualitative research study examines a representative group of competent pharmacy professionals to generate a theory about essential cognitive and affective skills for patient-centered care. Deductive reasoning could then be applied to design a hypothesis-driven prospective study that compares the outcomes of two cohorts of students, one group admitted using traditional criteria and one admitted based on a holistic admissions process revised to value the affective skills of applicants. Essentially, the qualitative researcher must carefully generate a conceptual framework that guides the research question and study design without allowing the conceptual framework to become so rigid as to dictate a testable hypothesis, which is the founding principle of deductive reasoning. 26

Step 2: Qualitative Study Design

The development of a strong conceptual framework facilitates selection of appropriate study methods to minimize the bias inherent in qualitative studies and help readers to trust the research and the researcher (see Glassick criteria #3 in Table 1 ). Although researchers can employ great flexibility in the selection of study methods, inclusion of best practice methods for assuring the rigor and trustworthiness of results is critical to study design. Lincoln and Guba outline four criteria for establishing the overall trustworthiness of qualitative research results: credibility, the researcher ensures and imparts to the reader supporting evidence that the results accurately represent what was studied; transferability, the researcher provides detailed contextual information such that readers can determine whether the results are applicable to their or other situations; dependability, the researcher describes the study process in sufficient detail that the work could be repeated; confirmability, the researcher ensures and communicates to the reader that the results are based on and reflective of the information gathered from the participants and not the interpretations or bias of the researcher. 27

Specific best practice methods used in the sampling and data collection processes to increase the rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative research include: clear rationale for sampling design decisions, determination of data saturation, ethics in research design, member checking, prolonged engagement with and persistent observation of study participants, and triangulation of data sources. 28

Qualitative research is focused on making sense of lived, observed phenomenon in a specific context with specifically selected individuals, rather than attempting to generalize from sample to population. Therefore, sampling design in qualitative research is not random but defined purposively to include the most appropriate participants in the most appropriate context for answering the research question. Qualitative researchers recognize that certain participants are more likely to be “rich” with data or insight than others, and therefore, more relevant and useful in achieving the research purpose and answering the question at hand. The conceptual framework contributes directly to determining sample definitions, size, and recruitment of participants. A typical best practice is purposive sampling methods, and when appropriate, convenience sampling may be justified. 29

Purposive sampling reflects intentional selection of research participants to optimize data sources for answering the research question. For example, the research question may be best answered by persons who have particular experience (critical case sampling) or certain expertise (key informant sampling). Similarly, additional participants may be referred for participation by active participants (snowball sampling) or may be selected to represent either similar or opposing viewpoints (confirming or disconfirming samples). Again, the process of developing and using a strong conceptual framework to guide and justify methodological decisions, in this case defining and establishing the study sample, is critical to rigor and quality. 30 Convenience sampling, using the most accessible research participants, is the least rigorous approach to defining a study sample and may result in low accuracy, poor representativeness, low credibility, and lack of transferability of study results.

Qualitative studies typically reflect designs in which data collection and analysis are done concurrently, with results of ongoing analysis informing continuing data collection. Determination of a final sample size is largely based on having sufficient opportunity to collect relevant data until new information is no longer emerging from data collection, new coding is not feasible, and/or no new themes are emerging; that is, reaching data saturation , a common standard of rigor for data collection in qualitative studies . Thus, accurately predicting a sample size during the planning phases of qualitative research can be challenging. 30 Care should be taken that sufficient quantity (think thick description) and quality (think rich description) of data have been collected prior to concluding that data saturation has been achieved. A poor decision regarding sample size is a direct consequence of sampling strategy and quality of data generated, which leaves the researcher unable to fully answer the research question in sufficient depth. 30

Though data saturation is probably the most common terminology used to describe the achievement of sufficient sample size, it does not apply to all study designs. For example, one could argue that in some approaches to qualitative research, data collection could continue infinitely if the event continues infinitely. In education, we often anecdotally observe variations in the personality and structure of a class of students, and as generations of students continue to evolve with time, so too would the data generated from observing each successive class. In such situations, data saturation might never be achieved. Conversely, the number of participants available for inclusion in a sample may be small and some risk of not reaching data saturation may be unavoidable. Thus, the idea of fully achieving data saturation may be unrealistic when applied to some populations or research questions. In other instances, attrition and factors related to time and resources may contribute to not reaching data saturation within the limits of the study. By being transparent in the process and reporting of results when saturation may not have been possible, the resulting data may still contribute to the field and to further inquiry. Replication of the study using other samples and conducting additional types of follow-up studies are other options for better understanding the research phenomenon at hand. 31

In addition to defining the sample and selecting participants, other considerations related to sampling bias may impact the quantity and quality of data generated and therefore the quality of the study result. These include: methods of recruiting, procedures for informed consent, timing of the interviews in relation to experience or emotion, procedures for ensuring participant anonymity/confidentiality, interview setting, and methods of recording/transcribing the data. Any of these factors could potentially change the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the study participants and influence the trustworthiness of data collected or the study result. Thus, ongoing application of previously mentioned researcher reflexivity is critical to the rigor of the study and quality of sampling. 29,30

Common qualitative data collection methods used in health professions education include interview, direct observation methods, and textual/document analysis. Given the unique and often highly sensitive nature of data being collected by the researcher, trustworthiness is an essential component of the researcher-participant relationship. Ethical conduct refers to how moral principles and values are part of the research process. Participants’ perceptions of ethical conduct are fundamental to a relationship likely to generate high quality data. During each step of the research process, care must be taken to protect the confidentiality of participants and shield them from harm relating to issues of respect and dignity. Researchers must be respectful of the participants’ contributions and quotes, and results must be reported truthfully and honestly. 8

Interview methods range from highly structured to increase dependability or completely open-ended to allow for interviewers to clarify a participant’s response for increased credibility and confirmability. Regardless, interview protocols and structure are often modified or refined, based on concurrent data collection and analysis processes to support or refute preliminary interpretations and refine focus and continuing inquiry. Researcher reflexivity, or acknowledgement of researcher bias, is absolutely critical to the credibility and trustworthiness of data collection and analysis in such study designs. 32

Interviews should be recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to coding and analysis. 28 Member checking, a common standard of rigor, is a practice to increase study credibility and confirmability that involves asking a research subject to verify the transcription of an interview. 1,16,28 The research subject is asked to verify the completeness and accuracy of an interview transcript to ensure the transcript truthfully reflects the meaning and intent of the subject’s contribution.

Prolonged engagement involves the researcher gaining familiarity and understanding of the culture and context surrounding the persons or situations being studied. This strategy supports reflexivity, allowing the researcher to determine how they themselves may be a source of bias during the data collection process by altering the nature of how individuals behave or interact with others in the presence of the researcher. Facial expressions, spoken language, body language, style of dress, age, race, gender, social status, culture, and the researcher’s relationship with the participants may potentially influence either participants’ responses or how the researcher interprets those responses. 33 “Fitting in” by demonstrating an appreciation and understanding of the cultural norms of the population being studied potentially allows the researcher to obtain more open and honest responses from participants. However, if the research participants or topic are too familiar or personal, this may also influence data collection or analysis and interpretation of the results. 33 The possible applications of this section to faculty research with student participants in the context of pharmacy education are obvious, and researcher reflexivity is critical to rigor.

Some researchers using observational methods adopt a strategy of direct field observation, while others play partial or full participant roles in the activity being observed. In both observation scenarios, it is impossible to separate the researcher from the environment, and researcher reflexivity is essential. The pros and cons of observation approach, relative to the research question and study purpose, should be evaluated by the researcher, and the justification for the observational strategy selected should be made clear. 34 Regardless of the researcher’s degree of visibility to the study participants, persistent observation of the targeted sample is critical to the confirmability standard and to achieving data saturation. That is, study conclusions must be clearly grounded in persistent phenomena witnessed during the study, rather than on a fluke event. 28

Researchers acknowledge that observational methodologies are limited by the reality that the researcher carries a bias in determining what is observed, what is recorded, how it is recorded, and how it is transcribed for analysis. A study’s conceptual framework is critical to achieving rigor and quality and provides guidance in developing predetermined notions or plans for what to observe, how to record, and how to minimize the influence of potential bias. 34 Researcher notes should be recorded as soon as possible after the observation event to optimize accuracy. The more detailed and complete the notes, the more accurate and useful they can be in data analysis or in auditing processes for enhancing rigor in the interpretation phase of the study. 34

Triangulation is among the common standards of rigor applied within the qualitative research paradigm. Data triangulation is used to identify convergence of data obtained through multiple data sources and methods (eg, observation field notes and interview transcripts) to avoid or minimize error or bias and optimize accuracy in data collection and analysis processes. 33,35,36

Again, researcher practice in reflexivity throughout research processes is integral to rigor in study design and implementation. Researchers must demonstrate attention to appropriate methods and reflective critique, which are represented in both core elements of the conceptual framework ( Figure 1 ) and Glassick criteria ( Table 1 ). In so doing, the researcher will be well-prepared to justify sampling design and data collection decisions to manuscript reviewers and, ultimately, readers.

Step 3: Data Analysis

In many qualitative studies, data collection runs concurrently with data analysis. Specific standards of rigor are commonly used to ensure trustworthiness and integrity within the data analysis process, including use of computer software, peer review, audit trail, triangulation, and negative case analysis.

Management and analyses of qualitative data from written text, observational field notes, and interview transcriptions may be accomplished using manual methods or the assistance of computer software applications for coding and analysis. When managing very large data sets or complex study designs, computer software can be very helpful to assist researchers in coding, sorting, organizing, and weighting data elements. Software applications can facilitate ease in calculating semi-quantitative descriptive statistics, such as counts of specific events, that can be used as evidence that the researcher’s analysis is based on a representative majority of data collected ( inclusivism ) rather than focusing on selected rarities ( anecdotalism ). Using software to code data can also make it easier to identify deviant cases, detect coding errors, and estimate interrater reliability among multiple coders. 37 While such software helps to manage data, the actual analyses and interpretation still reside with the researcher.

Peer review, another common standard of rigor, is a process by which researchers invite an independent third-party researcher to analyze a detailed audit trail maintained by the study author. The audit trail methodically describes the step-by-step processes and decision-making throughout the study. Review of this audit trail occurs prior to manuscript development and enhances study confirmability. 1,16 The peer reviewer offers a critique of the study methods and validation of the conclusions drawn by the author as a thorough check on researcher bias.

Triangulation also plays a role in data analysis, as the term can also be used to describe how multiple sources of data can be used to confirm or refute interpretation, assertions, themes, and study conclusions. If a theme or theory can be arrived at and validated using multiple sources of data, the result of the study has greater credibility and confirmability. 16,33,36 Should any competing or controversial theories emerge during data collection or analysis, it is vital to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study that the author disclose and explore those negative cases. Negative case analysis refers to actively seeking out and scrutinizing data that do not fit or support the researcher’s interpretation of the data. 16

The use of best practices applying to data collection and data analysis facilitates the full examination of data relative to the study purpose and research question and helps to prevent premature closure of the study. Rather than stopping at the initial identification of literal, first-level assertion statements and themes, authors must progress to interpreting how results relate to, revise, or expand the conceptual framework, or offer an improved theory or model for explaining the study phenomenon of interest. Closing the loop on data collection is critical and is achieved when thorough and valid analysis can be linked back to the conceptual framework, as addressed in the next section.

Step 4: Drawing Valid Conclusions

Lingard and Kennedy 38 succinctly state that the purpose of qualitative research is to deepen one’s understanding of specific perspectives, observations, experiences, or events evidenced through the behaviors or products of individuals and groups as they are situated in specific contexts or circumstances. Conclusions generated from study results should enhance the conceptual framework, or contribute to a new theory or model development, and are most often situated within the discussion and conclusion sections of a manuscript.

The discussion section should include interpretation of the results and recommendations for practice. Interpretations should go beyond first-level results or literal description of observed behaviors, patterns, and themes from analysis. The author’s challenge is to provide a complete and thorough examination and explanation of how specific results relate to each other, contribute to answering the research question, and achieve the primary purpose of the research endeavor. The discussion should “close the loop” by integrating study results and analysis with the original conceptual framework. The discussion section should also provide a parsimonious narrative or graphical explanation and interpretation of study results that enhances understanding of the targeted phenomena.

The conclusion section should provide an overall picture or synopsis of the study, including its important and unique contributions to the field from the perspective of both conceptual and practical significance. The conclusion should also include personal and theoretical perspectives and future directions for research. Together, the discussion and conclusion should include responses to the larger questions of the study’s contributions, such as: So what? Why do these results matter? What next?

The strength of conclusions is dependent upon the extent to which standards of rigor and best practices were demonstrated in design, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation, as described in previous sections of this article. 4,12,17,23,24 Quality and rigor expectations for drawing valid conclusions and generating new theories are reflected in the following essential features of rigor and quality, which include: “Close the loop” to clearly link research questions, study design, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of results. Reflect effective integration of the study results with the conceptual framework and explain results in ways that relate, support, elaborate, and/or challenge conclusions of prior scholarship. Descriptions of new or enhanced frameworks or models are clear and effectively grounded in the study results and conclusions. Practical or theoretical implications are effectively discussed, including guidance for future studies. Limitations and issues of reflexivity and ethics are clearly and explicitly described, including references to actions taken to address these areas. 3,4,12,14

Step 5: Reporting Research Results

Key to quality reporting of qualitative research results are clarity, organization, completeness, accuracy, and conciseness in communicating the results to the reader of the research manuscript. O’Brien and others 4 proposed a standardized framework specifically for reporting qualitative studies known as the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR, Table 2 ). This framework provides detailed explanations of what should be reported in each of 21 sections of a qualitative research manuscript. While the SRQR does not explicitly mention a conceptual framework, the descriptions and table footnote clarification for the introduction and problem statement reflect the essential elements and focus of a conceptual framework. Ultimately, readers of published work determine levels of credibility, trustworthiness, and the like. A manuscript reviewer, the first reader of a study report, has the responsibility and privilege of providing critique and guidance to authors regarding achievement of quality criteria, execution and reporting of standards of rigor, and the extent to which meaningful contributions to thinking and practice in the field are presented. 13,39

An Adaptation of the 21 Elements of O’Brien and Colleagues’ Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) 4

Authors must avoid language heavy with connotations or adjectives that insert the researcher’s opinion into the database or manuscript. 14,40 The researcher should be as neutral and objective as possible in interpreting data and in presenting results. Thick and rich descriptions, where robust descriptive language is used to provide sufficient contextual information, enable the reader to determine credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability .

The process of demonstrating the credibility of research is rooted in honest and transparent reporting of how biases and other possible confounders were identified and addressed throughout study processes. Such reporting, first described within the study’s conceptual framework, should be revisited in reporting the work. Confounders may include the researcher’s training and previous experiences, personal connections to the background theory, access to the study population, and funding sources. These elements and processes are best represented in Glassick’s criteria for effective presentation and reflective critique ( Table 1 , criteria 5 and 6). Transferability is communicated, in part, through description of sampling factors such as: geographical location of the study, number and characteristics of participants, and the timeframe of data collection and analysis. 40 Such descriptions also contribute to the credibility of the results and readers’ determination of transfer to their and other contexts. To ensure dependability, the research method must be reported in detail such that the reader can determine proper research practices have been followed and that future researchers can repeat the study. 40 The confirmability of the results is influenced by reducing or at a minimum explaining any researcher influence on the result by applying and meeting standards of rigor such as member checking, triangulation, and peer review. 29,33

In qualitative studies, the researcher is often the primary instrument for data collection. Any researcher biases not adequately addressed or errors in judgement can affect the quality of data and subsequent research results. 33 Thus, due to the creative interpretative and contextually bound nature of qualitative studies, the application of standards of rigor and adherence to systematic processes well-documented in an audit trail are essential. The application of rigor and quality criteria extend beyond the researcher and are also important to effective peer review processes within a study and for scholarly dissemination. The goal of rigor in qualitative research can be described as ensuring that the research design, method, and conclusions are explicit, public, replicable, open to critique, and free of bias. 41 Rigor in the research process and results are achieved when each element of study methodology is systematic and transparent through complete, methodical, and accurate reporting. 33 Beginning the study with a well-developed conceptual framework and active use of both researcher reflexivity and rigorous peer review during study implementation can drive both study rigor and quality.

As the number of published qualitative studies in health professions educational research increases, it is important for our community of health care educators to keep in mind the unique aspects of rigor in qualitative studies presented here. Qualitative researchers should select and apply any of the above referenced study methods and research practices, as appropriate to the research question, to achieve rigor and quality. As in any research paradigm, the goal of quality and rigor in qualitative research is to minimize the risk of bias and maximize the accuracy and credibility of research results. Rigor is best achieved through thoughtful and deliberate planning, diligent and ongoing application of researcher reflexivity, and honest communication between the researcher and the audience regarding the study and its results.

What is credibility in qualitative research and how do we establish it?

Since we consistently get questions about issues of trustworthiness in qualitative research, we decided to do a four-part series that really goes in-depth about each aspect of trustworthiness and how it can be established. There are four aspects of trustworthiness that qualitative researchers must establish: credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability. We begin the series here with a discussion of credibility in qualitative research.

Credibility is the first aspect, or criterion, that must be established. It is seen as the most important aspect or criterion in establishing trustworthiness. This is because credibility essentially asks the researcher to clearly link the research study’s findings with reality in order to demonstrate the truth of the research study’s findings. Credibility in qualitative research also has the most techniques available to establish it, compared to the other three aspects of trustworthiness. Here we focus on the two most important techniques (triangulation and member checking), since these will be the ones you find most often in qualitative research.

Triangulation: This is something that every qualitative researcher should be familiar with. Triangulation involves using multiple methods, data sources, observers, or theories in order to gain a more complete understanding of the phenomenon being studied. It is used to make sure that the research findings are robust, rich, comprehensive, and well-developed. There are four types of triangulation that researchers can employ.

• Methods triangulation : This involves utilizing different data collection methods in order to check the consistency of the findings.
• Triangulation of sources : This involves utilizing different data sources within the same method. This could be if you are using two different populations, interviewing people at different points in time, in private vs. public settings, or comparing people with different perspectives.
• Analyst triangulation : This involves utilizing another analyst to review the findings or using multiple observers and analysts. This is helpful to illuminate blind spots in the analysis process.
• Theoretical triangulation : This involves using multiple theoretical perspectives to analyze the data.

Need help with your research?

Schedule a time to speak with an expert using the calendar below.

User Friendly Software

Intellectus Qualitative, the ultimate platform designed to redefine your qualitative research experience.

Member-checking: This is the second important technique that qualitative researchers use to establish credibility. This is a technique in which the data, interpretations, and conclusions are shared with the participants. It allows participants to clarify what their intentions were, correct errors, and provide additional information if necessary.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

RESEARCH CREDIBILITY

2021, SPGS, Education Foundation, FUDMA, Katsina State

Research is an imperative area in not just the field of education but in other fields as well. It purifiesthe workings and the lives of the individuals. It primarily focuses upon improving quality and is asearch for knowledge. It shows how to make provision of solutions to problems in a scientific andmethodical manner. It is a systematic effort to acquire new knowledge in all disciplines. The mainpurpose of this research paper is to understand the significance of research in education.Educational research is termed as providing solutions to any educational problem. Therefore, thispaper proposes to explore the concept of research, types, characteristics and the relevance ofstatistics in research relating to the representativeness or credibility of qualitative research findings.

Related Papers

Vishaal Bharat Sansthan, Varanasi India

Harpreet Jass (Asstt. Professor, Deptt. Educational Studies)

E?~cationa/ research has seen the emergence of issues like 'contextualization ', 'role of participants m order to better understand the problems of education. As a result, there is mushroom growth in research topics at masters' level and in subsequent research degrees. Researchers conceptualize the res~arch problems focusing on teachers, students, parents, classrooms instead of measuring certain vanab/es of academic performances or measuring cognitive emotional ability of the participants. Instead of surveys, researchers seek reasons through opinions of the participants. These changes are unplanned similar to any change in the world, the researcher mostly fail to cognize this. Therefore, ii requires proper orientation and well documented courses of qualitative research in education for students for the 'quality' concerns in these researches. Concern of qualitative research in Education is primarily from its allied disciplines, mainly: Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology. It also has /ayers to its emergence, existence and evolution in Education. Application of qualitative research with incomplete understanding results in: first the challenges in orienting the qualitative researches during supervision; second raising the issues for valid comprehensive conceptualization of qualitative research in educational areas; lastly, designing a course and workshop for analysis of qualitative data that addresses the needs of Education. The paper cites three researches done at masters of education and the challenges of developing a conceptual framework, data collection techniques, analysis that involves coding, elaborating on themes, and analyzing with theoretical understanding. As there is imperative need to root paradigmatic and methodological concerns in educational debate.

intakhab khan

Higher education and research can't be separated for many reasons especially quality of education. All the developed and developing countries are allocating huge amount of funds for educational research with a hope that it would strengthen the process of education. On the other hand, good education also leads to quality research. The present paper is a modest attempt towards highlighting some of the theoretical aspects related to educational research, its nature, relevance and issues related to some dimensions of education. Education assures national and social development, and researches leads to educational developments.

Simon Gillett

Ferdinand J Potgieter , Hannes Vanderwalt

Research should be legitimized and clarified by the philosophical frame by which it metaphorically hangs. Such clarity is important in so far as it helps to provide a foundation for guiding researchers’ evaluations of the quality of their research findings. This article focuses on certain philosophical pre-conditions and justifications, i.e. the underlying, pre-theoretical or pre-scientific provisos / specifications / provisions for a researcher’s thinking and hence for his or her decisions about which methodology to follow and methods to apply when researching a problem. In order to achieve this aim, the article discusses the four “sides” or “panels” of the philosophical frame by which a researcher’s research method in general tends to hang, figuratively speaking, namely (a) integrated personality orientation, (b) transcendental orientation, (c) teleological orientation and (d) nomothetic orientation. Overlooking this “frame by which a researcher’s methodological picture hangs”, may have serious repercussions for how one does research.

Jhon Jairo Mosquera Rodas

The document presents the analysis and assessment of the paradigms through which educational research can be supported. It provides a rationale for why the researcher clearly defines the paradigm(s) of his/her study, considering the relevance and usefulness of these paradigms in the research process. Focusing on why it is essential to recognize the specificity of the levels of analysis - ethical, epistemological, methodological or axiological, in this type of research? This necessarily presents a complex picture, in relation to its object of study, and its position in the current science system.

Journal of Positive Psychology & Wellbeing, 5, 4, 205-217

Santiago Sevilla-Vallejo , Johanna Santa Cruz , ABEL DIONICIO BALLENA DE LA CRUZ

The article seeks to clarify the concepts involved in research methodology in education from an epistemological foundation. The method used is semantic and epistemological analysis of the concepts widely used in bibliographic resources on research methodology in social sciences, particularly in education, since it was found that, in the bibliographies on research methodology published in Spanish there is an indistinct use of the main concepts involved in the research process, such as approaches, paradigms, methods and research designs, among others, bringing equivocal understandings, ambiguous meanings and confusing applications of those who do research arising communication complications. It concludes with a proposal for conceptual clarification that allows a comprehensive standardization of the use and meaning of the most commonly used research terms in social science research methodology.

British Educational Research Journal

Charles Clark

ASHRAFALSADAT HAKIM

Merita M Poni

Quality & Quantity

Mansoor Niaz

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Ridwan Osman

prunima joshi

Dr. Shazia N. Awan

Luis Alberto Ibarra Díaz

Monika Jakubicz

Cristina Ispas

Research, critical thinkers, science philosophy

H. Afandi, Afandi

lulu farhan

Proceedings of INTED2015 Conference

Antonio Marzano , Rosa Vegliante , Marta De Angelis

International Journal of Educational Excellence

Syeda Fatima Zahra Naqvi

Dr. VISHAL VARIA

aysun çetin

Kenneth Ehimiowele

Mustafa SOZBILIR , Kübra Okumuş Dağdeler

Oroiyo K Peter

International Journal of Research and Education

Julio López-Alvarado

Pedagogika (Praha)

Marit Honerød Hoveid

Adesoji Oni

European Educational Research Journal

Marit H Hoveid

SObia Mumtaz

Sobia Ahmed

Engin Karadag

Universal Institute of Professional Management

Interchange

Zubair Naeem

Elisabete Xavier Gomes

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Prevention of Electoral Violence: A Panacea for Achieving Credible Election in Nigeria

• August 2024
• International Journal Of Humanities Education and Social Sciences (IJHESS) 2(3):337 - 350
• 2(3):337 - 350
• CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

• Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education

• Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education owerri.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• EI Ahamefula

• Justin Willis

• Robert Alan Dahl
• Patrick Chabal
• R. Michael Alvarez

• Susan D. Hyde

• Int J Afr Hist Stud
• Donald Rothchild

• Timothy J. Power
• Larry Jay Diamond
• Juan J. Linz

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up