explain the qualities of a good research report

Research Report
Post last modified: 11 January 2022
Reading time: 25 mins read
Post category: Research Methodology

explain the qualities of a good research report

What is Research Report?

Research reporting is the oral or written presentation of the findings in such detail and form as to be readily understood and assessed by the society, economy or particularly by the researchers.

As earlier said that it is the final stage of the research process and its purpose is to convey to interested persons the whole result of the study. Report writing is common to both academic and managerial situations. In academics, a research report is prepared for comprehensive and application-oriented learning. In businesses or organisations, reports are used for the basis of decision making.

Table of Content

1 What is Research Report?
2 Research Report Definition
3.1 Preliminary Part
3.2 Introduction of the Report
3.3 Review of Literature
3.4 The Research Methodology
3.5 Results
3.6 Concluding Remarks
3.7 Bibliography
4 Significance of Report Writing
5 Qualities of Good Report
6.1 Analysis of the subject matter
6.2 Research outline
6.3 Preparation of rough draft
6.4 Rewriting and polishing
6.5 Writing the final draft
7 Precautions for Writing Research Reports
8.1.1 Technical Report
8.1.2 Popular Report
8.2.1 Written Report
8.2.2 Oral Report

Research Report Definition

According to C. A. Brown , “A report is a communication from someone who has information to someone who wants to use that information.”

According to Goode and Hatt , “The preparation of report is the final stage of research, and it’s purpose is to convey to the interested persons the whole result of the study, in sufficient detail and so arranged as to enable each reader to comprehend the data and to determine for himself the validity of the conclusions.”

It is clear from the above definitions of a research report, it is a brief account of the problem of investigation, the justification of its selection and the procedure of analysis and interpretation. It is only a summary of the entire research proceedings.

In other words, it can be defined as written documents, which presents information in a specialized and concise manner.

Contents of Research Report

Although no hard and fast rules can be laid down, the report must contain the following points.

Acknowledgement
Table of contents
List of tables
List of graphs
Introduction
Background of the research study
Statement of the problem
Brief outline of the chapters
Books review
Review of articles published in books, journals, periodicals, etc
Review of articles published in leading newspapers
Working papers / discusssion paper / study reports
Articles on authorised websites
A broad conclusion and indications for further research
The theoretical framework (variables)
Model / hypothesis
Instruments for data collection
Data collection
Pilot study
Processing of data
Hypothesis / model testing
Data analysis and interpretation
Tables and figures
Conclusions
Shortcomings
Suggestions to the problems
Direction for further research

Preliminary Part

The preliminary part may have seven major components – cover, title, preface, acknowledgement, table of contents, list of tables, list of graphs. Long reports presented in book form have a cover made up of a card sheet. The cover contains title of the research report, the authority to whom the report is submitted, name of the author, etc.

The preface introduces the report to the readers. It gives a very brief introduction of the report. In the acknowledgements author mention names of persons and organisations that have extended co-operation and helped in the various stages of research. Table of contents is essential. It gives the title and page number of each chapter.

Introduction of the Report

The introduction of the research report should clearly and logically bring out the background of the problem addressed in the research. The purpose of the introduction is to introduce the research project to the readers. A clear statement of the problem with specific questions to be answered is presented in the introduction. It contains a brief outline of the chapters.

Review of Literature

The third section reviews the important literature related to the study. A comprehensive review of the research literature referred to must be made. Previous research studies and the important writings in the area under study should be reviewed. Review of literature is helpful to provide a background for the development of the present study.

The researcher may review concerned books, articles published in edited books, journals and periodicals. Researcher may also take review of articles published in leading newspapers. A researcher should study working papers/discussion papers/study reports. It is essential for a broad conclusion and indications for further research.

The Research Methodology

Research methodology is an integral part of the research. It should clearly indicate the universe and the selection of samples, techniques of data collection, analysis and interpretation, statistical techniques, etc.

Results contain pilot study, processing of data, hypothesis/model testing, data analysis and interpretation, tables and figures, etc. This is the heart of the research report. If a pilot study is planned to be used, it’s purpose should be given in the research methodology.

The collected data and the information should be edited, coded, tabulated and analysed with a view to arriving at a valid and authentic conclusion. Tables and figures are used to clarify the significant relationship. The results obtained through tables, graphs should be critically interpreted.

Concluding Remarks

The concluding remarks should discuss the results obtained in the earlier sections, as well as their usefulness and implications. It contains findings, conclusions, shortcomings, suggestions to the problem and direction for future research. Findings are statements of factual information based upon the data analysis.

Conclusions must clearly explain whether the hypothesis have been established and rejected. This part requires great expertise and preciseness. A report should also refer to the limitations of the applicability of the research inferences. It is essential to suggest the theoretical, practical and policy implications of the research. The suggestions should be supported by scientific and logical arguments. The future direction of research based on the work completed should also be outlined.

Bibliography

The bibliography is an alphabetic list of books, journal articles, reports, etc, published or unpublished, read, referred to, examined by the researcher in preparing the report. The bibliography should follow standard formats for books, journal articles, research reports.

The end of the research report may consist of appendices, listed in respect of all technical data. Appendices are for the purpose of providing detailed data or information that would be too cumbersome within the main body of the research report.

Significance of Report Writing

Report writing is an important communication medium in organisations. The most crucial findings might have come out through a research report. Report is common to academics and managers also. Reports are used for comprehensive and application oriented learning in academics. In organisations, reports are used for the basis of decision making. The importance of report writing can be discussed as under.

Through research reports, a manager or an executive can quickly get an idea of a current scenario which improves his information base for making sound decisions affecting future operations of the company or enterprise. The research report acts as a means of communication of various research findings to the interested parties, organisations and general public.

Good report writing play, a significant role of conveying unknown facts about the phenomenon to the concerned parties. This may provide new insights and new opportunities to the people. Research report plays a key role in making effective decisions in marketing, production, banking, materials, human resource development and government also. Good report writing is used for economic planning and optimum utilisation of resources for the development of a nation.

Report writing facilitates the validation of generalisation. A research report is an end product of research. As earlier said that report writing provides useful information in arriving at rational decisions that may reform the business and society. The findings, conclusions, suggestions and recommendations are useful to academicians, scholars and policymakers. Report writing provides reference material for further research in the same or similar areas of research to the concerned parties.

While preparing a research report, a researcher should take some proper precautions. Report writing should be simple, lucid and systematic. Report writing should be written speedily without interrupting the continuity of thought. The report writing should sustain the interest of readers.

Qualities of Good Report

Report writing is a highly skilled job. It is a process of analysing, understanding and consolidating the findings and projecting a meaningful view of the phenomenon studied. A good report writing is essential for effective communication.

Following are the essential qualities of good report:

A research report is essentially a scientific documentation. It should have a suggestive title, headings and sub-headings, paragraphs arranged in a logical sequence.
Good research report should include everything that is relevant and exclude everything that is irrelevant. It means that it should contain the facts rather than opinion.
The language of the report should be simple and unambiguous. It means that it should be free from biases of the researchers derived from the past experience. Confusion, pretentiousness and pomposity should be carefully guarded against. It means that the language of the report should be simple, employing appropriate words, idioms and expressions.
The report must be free from grammatical mistakes. It must be grammatically accurate. Faulty construction of sentences makes the meaning of the narrative obscure and ambiguous.
The report has to take into consideration two facts. Firstly, for whom the report is meant and secondly, what is his level of knowledge. The report has to look to the subject matter of the report and the fact as to the level of knowledge of the person for whom it is meant. Because all reports are not meant for research scholars.

Steps in Writing Research Report

Report writing is a time consuming and expensive exercise. Therefore, reports have to be very sharply focused in purpose content and readership. There is no single universally acceptable method of writing a research report.

Following are the general steps in writing a research report:

Analysis of the subject matter

Research outline, preparation of rough draft, rewriting and polishing, writing the final draft.

This is the first and important step in writing a research report. It is concerned with the development of a subject. Subject matter should be written in a clear, logical and concise manner. The style adopted should be open, straightforward and dignified and folk style language should be avoided.

The data, the reliability and validity of the results of the statistical analysis should be in the form of tables, figures and equations. All redundancy in the data or results presented should be eliminated.

The research outline is an organisational framework prepared by the researcher well in advance. It is an aid to logical organisation of material and a reminder of the points to be stressed in the report. In the process of writing, if need be, outline may be revised accordingly.

Time and place of the study, scope and limitations of the study, study design, summary of pilot study, methods of data collection, analysis interpretation, etc., may be included in a research outline.

Having prepared the primary and secondary data, the researcher has to prepare a rough draft. While preparing the rough draft, the researcher should keep the objectives of the research in mind, and focus on one objective at a time. The researcher should make a checklist of the important points that are necessary to be covered in the manuscript. A researcher should use dictionary and relevant reference materials as and when required.

This is an important step in writing a research report. It takes more time than a rough draft. While rewriting and polishing, a researcher should check the report for weakness in logical development or presentation. He should take breaks in between rewriting and polishing since this gives the time to incubate the ideas.

The last and important step is writing the final draft. The language of the report should be simple, employing appropriate words and expressions and should avoid vague expressions such as ‘it seems’ and ‘there may be’ etc.

It should not used personal pronouns, such as I, We, My, Us, etc and should substitute these by such expressions as a researcher, investigator, etc. Before the final drafting of the report, it is advisable that the researcher should prepare a first draft for critical considerations and possible improvements. It will be helpful in writing the final draft. Finally, the report should be logically outlined with the future directions of the research based on the work completed.

Precautions for Writing Research Reports

A research report is a means of conveying the research study to a specific target audience. The following precautions should be taken while preparing a research report:

Its hould belong enough to cover the subject and short enough to preserve interest.
It should not be dull and complicated.
It should be simple, without the usage of abstract terms and technical jargons.
It should offer ready availability of findings with the help of charts, tables and graphs, as readers prefer quick knowledge of main findings.
The layout of the report should be in accordance with the objectives of the research study.
There should be no grammatical errors and writing should adhere to the techniques of report writing in case of quotations, footnotes and documentations.
It should be original, intellectual and contribute to the solution of a problem or add knowledge to the concerned field.
Appendices should been listed with respect to all the technical data in the report.
It should be attractive, neat and clean, whether handwritten or typed.
The report writer should refrain from confusing the possessive form of the word ‘it’ is with ‘it’s.’ The accurate possessive form of ‘it is’ is ‘its.’ The use of ‘it’s’ is the contractive form of ‘it is.
A report should not have contractions. Examples are ‘didn’t’ or ‘it’s.’ In report writing, it is best to use the non-contractive form. Therefore, the examples would be replaced by ‘did not’ and ‘it is.’ Using ‘Figure’ instead of ‘Fig.’ and ‘Table’ instead of ‘Tab.’ will spare the reader of having to translate the abbreviations, while reading. If abbreviations are used, use them consistently throughout the report. For example, do not switch among ‘versus,’ and ‘vs’.
It is advisable to avoid using the word ‘very’ and other such words that try to embellish a description. They do not add any extra meaning and, therefore, should be dropped.
Repetition hampers lucidity. Report writers must avoid repeating the same word more than once within a sentence.
When you use the word ‘this’ or ‘these’ make sure you indicate to what you are referring. This reduces the ambiguity in your writing and helps to tie sentences together.
Do not use the word ‘they’ to refer to a singular person. You can either rewrite the sentence to avoid needing such a reference or use the singular ‘he or she.’

Types of Research Report

Research reports are designed in order to convey and record the information that will be of practical use to the reader. It is organized into distinct units of specific and highly visible information. The kind of audience addressed in the research report decides the type of report.

Research reports can be categorized on the following basis:

Classification on the Basis of Information

Classification on the basis of representation.

Following are the ways through which the results of the research report can be presented on the basis of information contained:

Technical Report

A technical report is written for other researchers. In writing the technical reports, the importance is mainly given to the methods that have been used to collect the information and data, the presumptions that are made and finally, the various presentation techniques that are used to present the findings and data.

Following are main features of a technical report:

Summary: It covers a brief analysis of the findings of the research in a very few pages.
Nature: It contains the reasons for which the research is undertaken, the analysis and the data that is required in order to prepare a report.
Methods employed: It contains a description of the methods that were employed in order to collect the data.
Data: It covers a brief analysis of the various sources from which the data has been collected with their features and drawbacks
Analysis of data and presentation of the findings: It contains the various forms through which the data that has been analysed can be presented.
Conclusions: It contains a brief explanation of findings of the research.
Bibliography: It contains a detailed analysis of the various bibliographies that have been used in order to conduct a research.
Technical appendices: It contains the appendices for the technical matters and for questionnaires and mathematical derivations.
Index: The index of the technical report must be provided at the end of the report.

Popular Report

A popular report is formulated when there is a need to draw conclusions of the findings of the research report. One of the main points of consideration that should be kept in mind while formulating a research report is that it must be simple and attractive. It must be written in a very simple manner that is understandable to all. It must also be made attractive by using large prints, various sub-headings and by giving cartoons occasionally.

Following are the main points that must be kept in mind while preparing a popular report:

Findings and their implications : While preparing a popular report, main importance is given to the findings of the information and the conclusions that can be drawn out of these findings.
Recommendations for action : If there are any deviations in the report then recommendations are made for taking corrective action in order to rectify the errors.
Objective of the study : In a popular report, the specific objective for which the research has been undertaken is presented.
Methods employed : The report must contain the various methods that has been employed in order to conduct a research.
Results : The results of the research findings must be presented in a suitable and appropriate manner by taking the help of charts and diagrams.
Technical appendices : The report must contain an in-depth information used to collect the data in the form of appendices.

Following are the ways through which the results of the research report can be presented on the basis of representation:

Writtenreport
Oral report

Written Report

A written report plays a vital role in every business operation. The manner in which an organization writes business letters and business reports creates an impression of its standard. Therefore, the organization should emphasize on the improvement of the writing skills of the employees in order to maintain effective relations with their customers.

Writing effective written reports requires a lot of hard work. Therefore, before you begin writing, it is important to know the objective, i.e., the purpose of writing, collection and organization of required data.

Oral Report

At times, oral presentation of the results that are drawn out of research is considered effective, particularly in cases where policy recommendations are to be made. This approach proves beneficial because it provides a medium of interaction between a listener and a speaker. This leads to a better understanding of the findings and their implications.

However, the main drawback of oral presentation is the lack of any permanent records related to the research. Oral presentation of the report is also effective when it is supported with various visual devices, such as slides, wall charts and whiteboards that help in better understanding of the research reports.

Business Ethics

( Click on Topic to Read )

What is Ethics?
What is Business Ethics?
Values, Norms, Beliefs and Standards in Business Ethics
Indian Ethos in Management
Ethical Issues in Marketing
Ethical Issues in HRM
Ethical Issues in IT
Ethical Issues in Production and Operations Management
Ethical Issues in Finance and Accounting
What is Corporate Governance?
What is Ownership Concentration?
What is Ownership Composition?
Types of Companies in India
Internal Corporate Governance
External Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance in India
What is Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)?
What is Assessment of Risk?
What is Risk Register?
Risk Management Committee

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Theories of CSR
Arguments Against CSR
Business Case for CSR
Importance of CSR in India
Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility
Developing a CSR Strategy
Implement CSR Commitments
CSR Marketplace
CSR at Workplace
Environmental CSR
CSR with Communities and in Supply Chain
Community Interventions
CSR Monitoring
CSR Reporting
Voluntary Codes in CSR
What is Corporate Ethics?

Lean Six Sigma

What is Six Sigma?
What is Lean Six Sigma?
Value and Waste in Lean Six Sigma
Six Sigma Team
MAIC Six Sigma
Six Sigma in Supply Chains
What is Binomial, Poisson, Normal Distribution?
What is Sigma Level?
What is DMAIC in Six Sigma?
What is DMADV in Six Sigma?
Six Sigma Project Charter
Project Decomposition in Six Sigma
Critical to Quality (CTQ) Six Sigma
Process Mapping Six Sigma
Flowchart and SIPOC
Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility
Statistical Diagram
Lean Techniques for Optimisation Flow
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
What is Process Audits?
Six Sigma Implementation at Ford
IBM Uses Six Sigma to Drive Behaviour Change
Research Methodology
What is Research?
What is Hypothesis?
Sampling Method
Research Methods

Data Collection in Research

Methods of collecting data.

Application of Business Research
Levels of Measurement
What is Sampling?

Hypothesis Testing

What is Management?
Planning in Management
Decision Making in Management
What is Controlling?
What is Coordination?
What is Staffing?
Organization Structure
What is Departmentation?
Span of Control
What is Authority?
Centralization vs Decentralization
Organizing in Management
Schools of Management Thought
Classical Management Approach
Is Management an Art or Science?
Who is a Manager?

Operations Research

What is Operations Research?
Operation Research Models
Linear Programming
Linear Programming Graphic Solution
Linear Programming Simplex Method
Linear Programming Artificial Variable Technique
Duality in Linear Programming
Transportation Problem Initial Basic Feasible Solution
Transportation Problem Finding Optimal Solution
Project Network Analysis with Critical Path Method
Project Network Analysis Methods
Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)
Simulation in Operation Research
Replacement Models in Operation Research

Operation Management

What is Strategy?
What is Operations Strategy?
Operations Competitive Dimensions
Operations Strategy Formulation Process
What is Strategic Fit?
Strategic Design Process
Focused Operations Strategy
Corporate Level Strategy
Expansion Strategies
Stability Strategies
Retrenchment Strategies
Competitive Advantage
Strategic Choice and Strategic Alternatives
What is Production Process?
What is Process Technology?
What is Process Improvement?
Strategic Capacity Management
Production and Logistics Strategy
Taxonomy of Supply Chain Strategies
Factors Considered in Supply Chain Planning
Operational and Strategic Issues in Global Logistics
Logistics Outsourcing Strategy
What is Supply Chain Mapping?
Supply Chain Process Restructuring
Points of Differentiation
Re-engineering Improvement in SCM
What is Supply Chain Drivers?
Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model
Customer Service and Cost Trade Off
Internal and External Performance Measures
Linking Supply Chain and Business Performance
Netflix’s Niche Focused Strategy
Disney and Pixar Merger
Process Planning at Mcdonald’s

Service Operations Management

What is Service?
What is Service Operations Management?
What is Service Design?
Service Design Process
Service Delivery
What is Service Quality?
Gap Model of Service Quality
Juran Trilogy
Service Performance Measurement
Service Decoupling
IT Service Operation
Service Operations Management in Different Sector

Procurement Management

What is Procurement Management?
Procurement Negotiation
Types of Requisition
RFX in Procurement
What is Purchasing Cycle?
Vendor Managed Inventory
Internal Conflict During Purchasing Operation
Spend Analysis in Procurement
Sourcing in Procurement
Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Procurement
Blacklisting of Suppliers in Procurement
Total Cost of Ownership in Procurement
Incoterms in Procurement
Documents Used in International Procurement
Transportation and Logistics Strategy
What is Capital Equipment?
Procurement Process of Capital Equipment
Acquisition of Technology in Procurement
What is E-Procurement?
E-marketplace and Online Catalogues
Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement Contracts
Contract Cancellation in Procurement
Ethics in Procurement
Legal Aspects of Procurement
Global Sourcing in Procurement
Intermediaries and Countertrade in Procurement

Strategic Management

What is Strategic Management?
What is Value Chain Analysis?
Mission Statement
Business Level Strategy
What is SWOT Analysis?
What is Competitive Advantage?
What is Vision?
What is Ansoff Matrix?
Prahalad and Gary Hammel
Strategic Management In Global Environment
Competitor Analysis Framework
Competitive Rivalry Analysis
Competitive Dynamics
What is Competitive Rivalry?
Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy
What is PESTLE Analysis?
Fragmentation and Consolidation Of Industries
What is Technology Life Cycle?
What is Diversification Strategy?
What is Corporate Restructuring Strategy?
Resources and Capabilities of Organization
Role of Leaders In Functional-Level Strategic Management
Functional Structure In Functional Level Strategy Formulation
Information And Control System
What is Strategy Gap Analysis?
Issues In Strategy Implementation
Matrix Organizational Structure
What is Strategic Management Process?

Supply Chain

What is Supply Chain Management?
Supply Chain Planning and Measuring Strategy Performance
What is Warehousing?
What is Packaging?
What is Inventory Management?
What is Material Handling?
What is Order Picking?
Receiving and Dispatch, Processes
What is Warehouse Design?
What is Warehousing Costs?

What is measure of dispersion, what is questionnaire design characteristics, types, don’t, what is research design types, what is parametric tests types: z-test, t-test, f-test, what is measurement scales, types, criteria and developing measurement tools, types of hypotheses, primary data and secondary data, what is literature review importance, functions, process,, data processing in research, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

We’ve spent the time in finding, so you can spend your time in learning

Digital Marketing

Personal Growth

Development

Alchem Learning

What Are the Main Qualities of a Good Report?

In the dynamic realms of business, academia, and various professional sectors, reports play a pivotal role in conveying information, analysis, and findings. Crafting a well-structured and effective report is essential for ensuring clarity and comprehension. Let’s delve into the key qualities that define a good report.

1. Clarity and Conciseness

A hallmark of an exceptional report is its clarity. The language should be straightforward, and ideas must be presented in a concise manner. Ambiguity and unnecessary details can hinder understanding. Clear and concise reports enhance communication and facilitate informed decision-making.

2. Relevance and Purpose

Every report should have a clear purpose and address the relevant issues. A good report stays focused on its objectives, avoiding unnecessary details or information that doesn’t contribute to the main message. It should be tailored to meet the needs of its intended audience.

3. Organization and Structure

A well-organized report is like a well-built structure. It should have a logical flow, starting with an introduction, followed by a well-defined body, and concluding with a summary or recommendations. Headings and subheadings aid in structuring information coherently.

4. Accuracy and Precision

Precision is key in a good report. Facts, data, and information must be accurate and presented with precision. Any errors or inaccuracies can undermine the credibility of the report. Cross-verification of data and thorough fact-checking are imperative.

5. Objectivity

A good report maintains objectivity, presenting information without bias. Avoiding personal opinions and subjective language ensures that the report is perceived as credible and reliable. Objectivity fosters trust among the readers.

6. Completeness

A complete report provides all the necessary information required for a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It should address key aspects, leaving no vital questions unanswered. Incomplete reports can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

7. Visual Appeal and Accessibility

Incorporating visual elements such as graphs, charts, and tables enhances the visual appeal of a report. Visual aids make complex information more accessible and aid in quicker comprehension. However, it’s essential to ensure that these elements are relevant and support the content.

8. Concise and Relevant Recommendations

If applicable, a good report includes clear and relevant recommendations based on the findings. These recommendations should be concise, actionable, and aligned with the report’s objectives. They guide decision-making and provide a roadmap for future actions.

In conclusion, a good report is a blend of clear communication, precision, and relevance. By adhering to these qualities, reports become powerful tools for conveying information effectively. Whether in the corporate world or academic spheres, mastering the art of report writing is a valuable skill that contributes to success.

Related References:

The Importance of Report Writing
Elements of a Good Report
How to Write a Business Report

Research Report Meaning, Characteristics and Types

Table of contents:-, research report meaning, characteristics of good research report, key characteristics of research report, types of research report, stages in preparation of research report, characteristics of a good report.

A research report is a document that conveys the outcomes of a study or investigation. Its purpose is to communicate the research’s findings, conclusions, and implications to a particular audience. This report aims to offer a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the research process, methodology, and results.

Once the researcher has completed data collection , data processing, developing and testing hypotheses, and interpretation of responses, the next important phase in research is the preparation of the research report. A research report is essential for the communication of research findings to its potential users.

The research report must be free from personal bias, external influences, and subjective factors. i.e., it must be free from one’s liking and disliking. The research report must be prepared to meet impersonal needs.

What is Research Report?

According to Lancaster, “A report is a statement of collected and considered facts, so drawn-ups to give clear and concise information to persons who are not already in possession of the full facts of the subject matter of the report”.

When researchers communicate their results in writing, they create a research report. It includes the research methodology, approaches, data collection precautions, research findings, and recommendations for solving related problems. Managers can put this result into action for more effective decision making .

Generally, top management places a higher emphasis on obtaining the research outcome rather than delving into the research procedure. Hence, the research report acts as a presentation that highlights the procedure and methodology adopted by the researcher.

The research report presents the complete procedure in a comprehensive way that in turn helps the management in making crucial decisions. Creating a research report adheres to a specific format, sequence, and writing style.

Enhance the effectiveness of a research report by incorporating various charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, etc. By using different representation techniques, researchers can convince the audience as well as the management in an effective way.

Characteristics of a good research report are listed below:

Clarity and Completeness
Reliability
Comprehensibility and Readability
Logical Content

The following paragraphs outline the characteristics of a good research report.

1) Accuracy

Report information must be accurate and based on facts, credible sources and data to establish reliability and trustworthiness. It should not be biased by the personal feelings of the writer. The information presented must be as precise as possible.

2) Simplicity

The language of a research report should be as simple as possible to ensure easy understanding. A good report communicates its message clearly and without ambiguity through its language.

It is a document of practical utility; therefore, it should be grammatically accurate, brief, and easily understood.

Jargon and technical words should be avoided when writing the report. Even in a technical report, there should be restricted use of technical terms if it is to be presented to laymen.

3) Clarity and Completeness

The report must be straightforward, lucid, and comprehensive in every aspect. Ambiguity should be avoided at all costs. Clarity is achieved through the strategic and practical organization of information. Report writers should divide their report into short paragraphs with headings and insert other suitable signposts to enhance clarity. They should:

Approach their task systematically,
Clarify their purpose,
Define their sources,
State their findings and
Make necessary recommendations.

A report should concisely convey the key points without unnecessary length, ensuring that the reader’s patience is not lost and ideas are not confused. Many times, people lack the time to read lengthy reports.

However, a report must also be complete. Sometimes, it is important to have a detailed discussion about the facts. A report is not an essay; therefore, points should be added to it.

5) Appearance

A report requires a visually appealing presentation and, whenever feasible, should be attention-grabbing. An effective report depends on the arrangement, organization, format, layout, typography, printing quality, and paper choice. Big companies often produce very attractive and colourful Annual Reports to showcase their achievements and financial performance.

6) Comprehensibility and Readability

Reports should be clear and straightforward for easy understanding. The style of presentation and the choice of words should be attractive to readers. The writer must present the facts in elegant and grammatically correct English so that the reader is compelled to read the report from beginning to end.

Only then does a report serve its purpose. A report written by different individuals on the same subject matter can vary depending on the intended audience.

7) Reliability

Reports should be reliable and should not create an erroneous impression in the minds of readers due to oversight or neglect. The facts presented in a report should be pertinent.

Every fact in a report must align with the central purpose, but it is also vital to ensure that all pertinent information is included.

Irrelevant facts can make a report confusing, and the exclusion of relevant facts can render it incomplete and likely to mislead.

Report writing should not incur unnecessary expenses. Cost-effective methods should be used to maintain a consistent level of quality when communicating the content.

9) Timelines

Reports can be valuable and practical when they reach the readers promptly. Any delay in the submission of reports renders the preparation of reports futile and sometimes obsolete.

10) Logical Content

The points mentioned in a report should be arranged in a step-by-step logical sequence and not haphazardly. Distinctive points should have self-explanatory headings and sub-headings. The scientific accuracy of facts is very essential for a report.

Planning is necessary before a report is prepared, as reports invariably lead to decision-making, and inaccurate facts may result in unsuccessful decisions.

nature of marketing
difference between questionnaire and schedule
features of marginal costing
placement in hrm
limitations of marginal costing
nature of leadership
difference between advertising and personal selling

A research report serves as a means of communicating research findings to the readers effectively.

Clarity in Information
Optimal Length
Objective and Simple Language
Clear Thinking and Logical Organization
Engaging Style
Clarity in Presentation
Readability
Best Composition Practices
Inferences and Conclusions
Proper References
Attractive Appearance

i) Clarity in Information

A well-defined research report must define the what, why, who, whom, when, where, and how of the research study. It must help the readers to understand the focus of the information presented.

ii) Optimal Length

The report should strike a balance, being sufficiently brief and appropriately extended. It should cover the subject matter adequately while maintaining the reader’s interest.

iii) Objective and Simple Language

The report should be written in an objective style, employing simple language. Correctness, precision, and clarity should be prioritized, avoiding wordiness, indirection, and pompous language.

iv) Clear Thinking and Logical Organization

An excellent report integrates clear thinking, logical organization, and sound interpretation of the research findings.

v) Engaging Style

It should not be dull; instead, it should captivate and sustain the reader’s interest.

vi) Accuracy

Accuracy is paramount. The report must present facts objectively, eschewing exaggerations and superlatives.

vii) Clarity in Presentation

Presentation clarity is achieved through familiar words, unambiguous statements, and explicit definitions of new concepts or terms.

viii) Coherence

The logical flow of ideas and a coherent sequence of sentences contribute to a smooth continuity of thought.

ix) Readability

Even technical reports should be easily understandable. Translate technicalities into reader-friendly language.

x) Best Composition Practices

Follow best composition practices, ensuring readability through proper paragraphing, short sentences, and the use of illustrations, examples, section headings, charts, graphs, and diagrams.

xi) Inferences and Conclusions

Draw sound inferences and conclusions from statistical tables without repeating them in verbal form.

xii) Proper References

Footnote references should be correctly formatted, and the bibliography should be reasonably complete.

xiii) Attractive Appearance

The report should be visually appealing, maintaining a neat and clean appearance, whether typed or printed.

xiv) Error-Free

The report should be free from all types of mistakes, including language, factual, spelling, and calculation errors.

In striving for these qualities, the researcher enhances the overall quality of the report.

Research reports are of the following types:

Technical Report
Manuscripts for Journal Articles
Thesis and Dissertations
Other Types of Research Report

1) Technical Report

Technical reports are reports which contain detailed information about the research problem and its findings. These reports are typically subject to review by individuals interested in research methodology. Such reports include detailed descriptions of used methods for research design such as universe selection , sample preparation, designing questionnaire , identifying potential data sources, etc. These reports provide a complete description of every step, method, and tool used. When crafting technical reports, we assume that users possess knowledge of research methodology, which is why the language used in these reports is technical. Technical reports are valuable in situations where there is a need for statistical analysis of collected data. Researchers also employ it in conducting a series of research studies, where they can repetitively use the methodology.

2) Manuscripts for Journal Articles

When authors prepare a report with a particular layout or design for publishing in an academic or scientific journal, it becomes a “manuscript for journal articles”. Journal articles are a concise and complete presentation of a particular research study. While technical reports present a detailed description of all the activities in research, journal articles are known for presenting only a few critical areas or findings of a study. The readers or audience of journal articles include other researchers, management and executives, strategic analysts and the general public, interested in the topic.

In general, a manuscript for a journal article typically ranges from 10 to 30 pages in length. Sometimes there is a page or word limit for preparing the report. Authors primarily submit manuscripts for journal articles online, although they occasionally send paper copies through regular mail.

3) Thesis and Dissertations

Students working towards a Master’s, PhD, or another higher degree generally produce a thesis or dissertation, which is a form of research report. Like other normal research reports, the thesis or dissertation usually describes the design, tools or methods and results of the student’s research in detail.

These reports typically include a detailed section called the literature review, which encompasses relevant literature and previous studies on the topic. Firstly, the work or research of the student is analysed by a professional researcher or an expert in that particular research field, and then the thesis is written under the guidance of a professional supervisor. Dissertations and theses usually span approximately 120 to 300 pages in length.

Generally, the university or institution decides the length of the dissertation or thesis. A distinctive feature of a thesis or a dissertation is that it is quite economical, as it requires few printed and bound copies of the report. Sometimes electronic copies are required to be submitted along with the hard copy of the thesis or dissertations. Compact discs (CDs) are used to generate the electronic copy.

4) Other Types of Research Report

Along with the above-mentioned types, there are some other types of research reports, which are as follows:

Popular Report
Interim Report
Summary Report
Research Abstract

i) Popular Report

A popular report is prepared for the use of administrators, executives, or managers. It is simple and attractive in the form of a report. Clear and concise statements are used with less technical or statistical terms. Data representation is kept very simple through minimal use of graphs and charts. It has a different format than that of a technical one by liberally using margins and blank spaces. The style of writing a popular report is journalistic and precise. It is written to facilitate reading rapidly and comprehending quickly.

ii) Interim Report

An interim report is a kind of report which is prepared to show the sponsors, the progress of research work before the final presentation of the report. It is prepared when there is a certain time gap between the data collection and presentation. In this scenario, the completed portion of data analysis along with its findings is described in a particular interim report.

iii) Summary Report

This type of report is related to the interest of the general public. The findings of such a report are helpful for the decision making of general users. The language used for preparing a summary report is comprehensive and simple. The inclusion of numerous graphs and tables enhances the report’s overall clarity and comprehension. The main focus of this report is on the objectives, findings, and implications of the research issue.

iv) Research Abstract

The research abstract is a short presentation of the technical report. All the elements of a particular technical report, such as the research problem, objectives, sampling techniques, etc., are described in the research abstract but the description is concise and easy.

Research reports result from meticulous and deliberate work. Consequently, the preparation of the information can be delineated into the following key stages:

1) Logical Understanding and Subject Analysis: This stage involves a comprehensive grasp and analysis of the subject matter.

2) Planning/Designing the Final Outline: In this phase, the final outline of the report is meticulously planned and designed.

3) Write-Up/Preparation of Rough Draft: The report takes shape during this stage through the composition of a rough draft.

4) Polishing/Finalization of the Research Report: The final stage encompasses refining and polishing the report to achieve its ultimate form.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Logical understanding and subject analysis.

This initial stage focuses on the subject’s development, which can be achieved through two approaches:

Logical development and
Chronological development

Logical development relies on mental connections and associations between different aspects facilitated by rational analysis. Typically, this involves progressing from simple to complex elements. In contrast, chronological development follows a sequence of time or events, with instructions or descriptions often adhering to chronological order.

Designing the Final Outline of the Research Report

This marks the second stage in report writing. Once the subject matter is comprehended, the subsequent step involves structuring the report, arranging its components, and outlining them. This stage is also referred to as the planning and organization stage. While ideas may flow through the author’s mind, they must create a plan, sketch, or design. These are necessary for achieving a harmonious succession to become more accessible, and the author may be unsure where to commence or conclude. Effective communication of research results hinges not only on language but predominantly on the meticulous planning and organization of the report.

Preparation of the Rough Draft

The third stage involves the writing and drafting of the report. This phase is pivotal for the researcher as they translate their research study into written form, articulating what they have accomplished and how they intend to convey it.

The clarity in communication and reporting during this stage is influenced by several factors, including the audience, the technical complexity of the problem, the researcher’s grasp of facts and techniques, their proficiency in the language (communication skills), the completeness of notes and documentation, and the availability of analyzed results.

Depending on these factors, some authors may produce the report with just one or two drafts. In contrast, others, with less command over language and a lack of clarity about the problem and subject matter, may require more time and multiple drafts (first draft, second draft, third draft, fourth draft, etc.).

Finalization of the Research Report

This marks the last stage, potentially the most challenging phase in all formal writing. Constructing the structure is relatively easy, but refining and adding the finishing touches require considerable time. Consider, for instance, the construction of a house. The work progresses swiftly up to the roofing (structure) stage, but the final touches and completion demand a significant amount of time.

The rough draft, whether it is the second draft or the n th draft, must undergo rewriting and polishing to meet the requirements. The meticulous revision of the rough draft is what distinguishes a mediocre piece of writing from a good one. During the polishing and finalization phase, it is crucial to scrutinize the report for weaknesses in the logical development of the subject and the cohesion of its presentation. Additionally, attention should be given to the mechanics of writing, including language, usage, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Good research possesses certain characteristics, which are as follows:

Empirical Basis
Logical Approach
Systematic Nature
Replicability
Validity and Verifiability
Theory and Principle Development

1. Empirical Basis: It implies that any conclusion drawn is grounded in hardcore evidence collected from real-life experiences and observations. This foundation provides external validity to research results.

2. Logical Approach: Good research is logical, guided by the rules of reasoning and analytical processes of induction (general to specific) and deduction (particular to the public). Logical reasoning is integral to making research feasible and meaningful in decision-making.

3. Systematic Nature: Good research is systematic, which adheres to a structured set of rules, following specific steps in a defined sequence. Systematic research encourages creative thinking while avoiding reliance on guesswork and intuition to reach conclusions.

4. Replicability: Scientific research designs, procedures, and results should be replicable. This ensures that anyone apart from the original researcher can assess their validity. Researchers can use or replicate results obtained by others, making the procedures and outcomes of the research both replicable and transmittable.

5. Validity and Verifiability: Good research involves precise observation and accurate description. The researcher selects reliable and valid instruments for data collection, employing statistical measures to portray results accurately. The conclusions drawn are correct and verifiable by both the researcher and others.

6. Theory and Principle Development: It contributes to formulating theories and principles, aiding accurate predictions about the variables under study. By making sound generalizations based on observed samples, researchers extend their findings beyond immediate situations, objects, or groups, formulating generalizations or theories about these factors.

1. What are the key characteristics of research report?

What is a Research Report?

A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.

In many ways, a research report can be considered as a summary of the research process that clearly highlights findings, recommendations, and other important details. Reading a well-written research report should provide you with all the information you need about the core areas of the research process.

Features of a Research Report

So how do you recognize a research report when you see one? Here are some of the basic features that define a research report.

It is a detailed presentation of research processes and findings, and it usually includes tables and graphs.
It is written in a formal language.
A research report is usually written in the third person.
It is informative and based on first-hand verifiable information.
It is formally structured with headings, sections, and bullet points.
It always includes recommendations for future actions.

Types of Research Report

The research report is classified based on two things; nature of research and target audience.

Nature of Research

Qualitative Research Report

This is the type of report written for qualitative research . It outlines the methods, processes, and findings of a qualitative method of systematic investigation. In educational research, a qualitative research report provides an opportunity for one to apply his or her knowledge and develop skills in planning and executing qualitative research projects.

A qualitative research report is usually descriptive in nature. Hence, in addition to presenting details of the research process, you must also create a descriptive narrative of the information.

Quantitative Research Report

A quantitative research report is a type of research report that is written for quantitative research. Quantitative research is a type of systematic investigation that pays attention to numerical or statistical values in a bid to find answers to research questions.

In this type of research report, the researcher presents quantitative data to support the research process and findings. Unlike a qualitative research report that is mainly descriptive, a quantitative research report works with numbers; that is, it is numerical in nature.

Target Audience

Also, a research report can be said to be technical or popular based on the target audience. If you’re dealing with a general audience, you would need to present a popular research report, and if you’re dealing with a specialized audience, you would submit a technical report.

Technical Research Report

A technical research report is a detailed document that you present after carrying out industry-based research. This report is highly specialized because it provides information for a technical audience; that is, individuals with above-average knowledge in the field of study.

In a technical research report, the researcher is expected to provide specific information about the research process, including statistical analyses and sampling methods. Also, the use of language is highly specialized and filled with jargon.

Examples of technical research reports include legal and medical research reports.

Popular Research Report

A popular research report is one for a general audience; that is, for individuals who do not necessarily have any knowledge in the field of study. A popular research report aims to make information accessible to everyone.

It is written in very simple language, which makes it easy to understand the findings and recommendations. Examples of popular research reports are the information contained in newspapers and magazines.

Importance of a Research Report

Knowledge Transfer: As already stated above, one of the reasons for carrying out research is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, and this is made possible with a research report. A research report serves as a means to effectively communicate the findings of a systematic investigation to all and sundry.
Identification of Knowledge Gaps: With a research report, you’d be able to identify knowledge gaps for further inquiry. A research report shows what has been done while hinting at other areas needing systematic investigation.
In market research, a research report would help you understand the market needs and peculiarities at a glance.
A research report allows you to present information in a precise and concise manner.
It is time-efficient and practical because, in a research report, you do not have to spend time detailing the findings of your research work in person. You can easily send out the report via email and have stakeholders look at it.

Guide to Writing a Research Report

A lot of detail goes into writing a research report, and getting familiar with the different requirements would help you create the ideal research report. A research report is usually broken down into multiple sections, which allows for a concise presentation of information.

Structure and Example of a Research Report

This is the title of your systematic investigation. Your title should be concise and point to the aims, objectives, and findings of a research report.

Table of Contents

This is like a compass that makes it easier for readers to navigate the research report.

An abstract is an overview that highlights all important aspects of the research including the research method, data collection process, and research findings. Think of an abstract as a summary of your research report that presents pertinent information in a concise manner.

An abstract is always brief; typically 100-150 words and goes straight to the point. The focus of your research abstract should be the 5Ws and 1H format – What, Where, Why, When, Who and How.

Introduction

Here, the researcher highlights the aims and objectives of the systematic investigation as well as the problem which the systematic investigation sets out to solve. When writing the report introduction, it is also essential to indicate whether the purposes of the research were achieved or would require more work.

In the introduction section, the researcher specifies the research problem and also outlines the significance of the systematic investigation. Also, the researcher is expected to outline any jargons and terminologies that are contained in the research.

Literature Review

A literature review is a written survey of existing knowledge in the field of study. In other words, it is the section where you provide an overview and analysis of different research works that are relevant to your systematic investigation.

It highlights existing research knowledge and areas needing further investigation, which your research has sought to fill. At this stage, you can also hint at your research hypothesis and its possible implications for the existing body of knowledge in your field of study.

An Account of Investigation

This is a detailed account of the research process, including the methodology, sample, and research subjects. Here, you are expected to provide in-depth information on the research process including the data collection and analysis procedures.

In a quantitative research report, you’d need to provide information surveys, questionnaires and other quantitative data collection methods used in your research. In a qualitative research report, you are expected to describe the qualitative data collection methods used in your research including interviews and focus groups.

In this section, you are expected to present the results of the systematic investigation.

This section further explains the findings of the research, earlier outlined. Here, you are expected to present a justification for each outcome and show whether the results are in line with your hypotheses or if other research studies have come up with similar results.

Conclusions

This is a summary of all the information in the report. It also outlines the significance of the entire study.

References and Appendices

This section contains a list of all the primary and secondary research sources.

Tips for Writing a Research Report

Define the Context for the Report

As is obtainable when writing an essay, defining the context for your research report would help you create a detailed yet concise document. This is why you need to create an outline before writing so that you do not miss out on anything.

Define your Audience

Writing with your audience in mind is essential as it determines the tone of the report. If you’re writing for a general audience, you would want to present the information in a simple and relatable manner. For a specialized audience, you would need to make use of technical and field-specific terms.

Include Significant Findings

The idea of a research report is to present some sort of abridged version of your systematic investigation. In your report, you should exclude irrelevant information while highlighting only important data and findings.

Include Illustrations

Your research report should include illustrations and other visual representations of your data. Graphs, pie charts, and relevant images lend additional credibility to your systematic investigation.

Choose the Right Title

A good research report title is brief, precise, and contains keywords from your research. It should provide a clear idea of your systematic investigation so that readers can grasp the entire focus of your research from the title.

Proofread the Report

Before publishing the document, ensure that you give it a second look to authenticate the information. If you can, get someone else to go through the report, too, and you can also run it through proofreading and editing software.

How to Gather Research Data for Your Report

Understand the Problem

Every research aims at solving a specific problem or set of problems, and this should be at the back of your mind when writing your research report. Understanding the problem would help you to filter the information you have and include only important data in your report.

Know what your report seeks to achieve

This is somewhat similar to the point above because, in some way, the aim of your research report is intertwined with the objectives of your systematic investigation. Identifying the primary purpose of writing a research report would help you to identify and present the required information accordingly.

Identify your audience

Knowing your target audience plays a crucial role in data collection for a research report. If your research report is specifically for an organization, you would want to present industry-specific information or show how the research findings are relevant to the work that the company does.

Create Surveys/Questionnaires

A survey is a research method that is used to gather data from a specific group of people through a set of questions. It can be either quantitative or qualitative.

A survey is usually made up of structured questions, and it can be administered online or offline. However, an online survey is a more effective method of research data collection because it helps you save time and gather data with ease.

You can seamlessly create an online questionnaire for your research on Formplus . With the multiple sharing options available in the builder, you would be able to administer your survey to respondents in little or no time.

Formplus also has a report summary too l that you can use to create custom visual reports for your research.

Step-by-step guide on how to create an online questionnaire using Formplus

Sign into Formplus

In the Formplus builder, you can easily create different online questionnaires for your research by dragging and dropping preferred fields into your form. To access the Formplus builder, you will need to create an account on Formplus.

Once you do this, sign in to your account and click on Create new form to begin.

Edit Form Title : Click on the field provided to input your form title, for example, “Research Questionnaire.”
Edit Form : Click on the edit icon to edit the form.
Add Fields : Drag and drop preferred form fields into your form in the Formplus builder inputs column. There are several field input options for questionnaires in the Formplus builder.
Edit fields
Click on “Save”
Form Customization: With the form customization options in the form builder, you can easily change the outlook of your form and make it more unique and personalized. Formplus allows you to change your form theme, add background images, and even change the font according to your needs.
Multiple Sharing Options: Formplus offers various form-sharing options, which enables you to share your questionnaire with respondents easily. You can use the direct social media sharing buttons to share your form link to your organization’s social media pages. You can also send out your survey form as email invitations to your research subjects too. If you wish, you can share your form’s QR code or embed it on your organization’s website for easy access.

Conclusion

Always remember that a research report is just as important as the actual systematic investigation because it plays a vital role in communicating research findings to everyone else. This is why you must take care to create a concise document summarizing the process of conducting any research.

In this article, we’ve outlined essential tips to help you create a research report. When writing your report, you should always have the audience at the back of your mind, as this would set the tone for the document.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

ethnographic research survey
research report
research report survey
busayo.longe

Assessment Tools: Types, Examples & Importance

In this article, you’ll learn about different assessment tools to help you evaluate performance in various contexts

21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2022

In this article, we will discuss a number of chrome extensions you can use to make your research process even seamless

Ethnographic Research: Types, Methods + [Question Examples]

Simple guide on ethnographic research, it types, methods, examples and advantages. Also highlights how to conduct an ethnographic...

How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

Learn how to write problem statements before commencing any research effort. Learn about its structure and explore examples

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.

Literature Review

The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.

Methodology

The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.

The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.

The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.

The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.

The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.

Research Paper

Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Technical Report

A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.

Progress Report

A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.

Feasibility Report

A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.

Field Report

A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.

Experimental Report

An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.

Case Study Report

A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.

Literature Review Report

A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.

Introduction:

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).

Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.

Methodology:

The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.

The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.

Discussion:

The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.

Limitations:

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.

Implications:

The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.

References:

Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 1-19.
Pantic, I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 652-657.
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.

Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field.
Informing policy and practice : Research reports can inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers. For example, a research report on the effectiveness of a new drug could inform regulatory agencies in their decision-making process.
Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research in a particular area. Other researchers may use the findings and methodology of a report to develop new research questions or to build on existing research.
Evaluating programs and interventions : Research reports can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. For example, a research report on a new educational program could provide evidence of its impact on student performance.
Demonstrating impact : Research reports can be used to demonstrate the impact of research funding or to evaluate the success of research projects. By presenting the findings and outcomes of a study, research reports can show the value of research to funders and stakeholders.
Enhancing professional development : Research reports can be used to enhance professional development by providing a source of information and learning for researchers and practitioners in a particular field. For example, a research report on a new teaching methodology could provide insights and ideas for educators to incorporate into their own practice.

How to write Research Report

Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:

Identify the research question: The first step in writing a research report is to identify your research question. This will help you focus your research and organize your findings.
Conduct research : Once you have identified your research question, you will need to conduct research to gather relevant data and information. This can involve conducting experiments, reviewing literature, or analyzing data.
Organize your findings: Once you have gathered all of your data, you will need to organize your findings in a way that is clear and understandable. This can involve creating tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate your results.
Write the report: Once you have organized your findings, you can begin writing the report. Start with an introduction that provides background information and explains the purpose of your research. Next, provide a detailed description of your research methods and findings. Finally, summarize your results and draw conclusions based on your findings.
Proofread and edit: After you have written your report, be sure to proofread and edit it carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and make sure that your report is well-organized and easy to read.
Include a reference list: Be sure to include a list of references that you used in your research. This will give credit to your sources and allow readers to further explore the topic if they choose.
Format your report: Finally, format your report according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or organization. This may include formatting requirements for headings, margins, fonts, and spacing.

Purpose of Research Report

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.

Some common purposes of a research report include:

Sharing knowledge: A research report allows researchers to share their findings and knowledge with others in their field. This helps to advance the field and improve the understanding of a particular topic.
Identifying trends: A research report can identify trends and patterns in data, which can help guide future research and inform decision-making.
Addressing problems: A research report can provide insights into problems or issues and suggest solutions or recommendations for addressing them.
Evaluating programs or interventions : A research report can evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions, which can inform decision-making about whether to continue, modify, or discontinue them.
Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies.

When to Write Research Report

A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.

In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.

Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

Characteristics of Research Report

There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:

Objective: A research report should be written in an objective and unbiased manner. It should present the facts and findings of the research study without any personal opinions or biases.
Systematic: A research report should be written in a systematic manner. It should follow a clear and logical structure, and the information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand and follow.
Detailed: A research report should be detailed and comprehensive. It should provide a thorough description of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
Accurate : A research report should be accurate and based on sound research methods. The findings and conclusions should be supported by data and evidence.
Organized: A research report should be well-organized. It should include headings and subheadings to help the reader navigate the report and understand the main points.
Clear and concise: A research report should be written in clear and concise language. The information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, and unnecessary jargon should be avoided.
Citations and references: A research report should include citations and references to support the findings and conclusions. This helps to give credit to other researchers and to provide readers with the opportunity to further explore the topic.

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

Communicating research findings: Research reports allow researchers to communicate their findings to a wider audience, including other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public. This helps to disseminate knowledge and advance the understanding of a particular topic.
Providing evidence for decision-making : Research reports can provide evidence to inform decision-making, such as in the case of policy-making, program planning, or product development. The findings and conclusions can help guide decisions and improve outcomes.
Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research on a particular topic. Other researchers can build on the findings and conclusions of the report, which can lead to further discoveries and advancements in the field.
Demonstrating expertise: Research reports can demonstrate the expertise of the researchers and their ability to conduct rigorous and high-quality research. This can be important for securing funding, promotions, and other professional opportunities.
Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies. Producing a high-quality research report can help ensure compliance with these requirements.

Limitations of Research Report

Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:

Time-consuming: Conducting research and writing a report can be a time-consuming process, particularly for large-scale studies. This can limit the frequency and speed of producing research reports.
Expensive: Conducting research and producing a report can be expensive, particularly for studies that require specialized equipment, personnel, or data. This can limit the scope and feasibility of some research studies.
Limited generalizability: Research studies often focus on a specific population or context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts.
Potential bias : Researchers may have biases or conflicts of interest that can influence the findings and conclusions of the research study. Additionally, participants may also have biases or may not be representative of the larger population, which can limit the validity and reliability of the findings.
Accessibility: Research reports may be written in technical or academic language, which can limit their accessibility to a wider audience. Additionally, some research may be behind paywalls or require specialized access, which can limit the ability of others to read and use the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

Assignment – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Appendix in Research Paper – Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

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
J Korean Med Sci
v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Quantitative research questions	Quantitative research hypotheses
Descriptive research questions	Simple hypothesis
Comparative research questions	Complex hypothesis
Relationship research questions	Directional hypothesis
	Non-directional hypothesis
	Associative hypothesis
	Causal hypothesis
	Null hypothesis
	Alternative hypothesis
	Working hypothesis
	Statistical hypothesis
	Logical hypothesis
	Hypothesis-testing
Qualitative research questions	Qualitative research hypotheses
Contextual research questions	Hypothesis-generating
Descriptive research questions
Evaluation research questions
Explanatory research questions
Exploratory research questions
Generative research questions
Ideological research questions
Ethnographic research questions
Phenomenological research questions
Grounded theory questions
Qualitative case study questions

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Quantitative research questions
Descriptive research question
	- Measures responses of subjects to variables
	- Presents variables to measure, analyze, or assess
	What is the proportion of resident doctors in the hospital who have mastered ultrasonography (response of subjects to a variable) as a diagnostic technique in their clinical training?
Comparative research question
	- Clarifies difference between one group with outcome variable and another group without outcome variable
	Is there a difference in the reduction of lung metastasis in osteosarcoma patients who received the vitamin D adjunctive therapy (group with outcome variable) compared with osteosarcoma patients who did not receive the vitamin D adjunctive therapy (group without outcome variable)?
	- Compares the effects of variables
	How does the vitamin D analogue 22-Oxacalcitriol (variable 1) mimic the antiproliferative activity of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D (variable 2) in osteosarcoma cells?
Relationship research question
	- Defines trends, association, relationships, or interactions between dependent variable and independent variable
	Is there a relationship between the number of medical student suicide (dependent variable) and the level of medical student stress (independent variable) in Japan during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Quantitative research hypotheses
Simple hypothesis
	- Predicts relationship between single dependent variable and single independent variable
	If the dose of the new medication (single independent variable) is high, blood pressure (single dependent variable) is lowered.
Complex hypothesis
	- Foretells relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables
	The higher the use of anticancer drugs, radiation therapy, and adjunctive agents (3 independent variables), the higher would be the survival rate (1 dependent variable).
Directional hypothesis
	- Identifies study direction based on theory towards particular outcome to clarify relationship between variables
	Privately funded research projects will have a larger international scope (study direction) than publicly funded research projects.
Non-directional hypothesis
	- Nature of relationship between two variables or exact study direction is not identified
	- Does not involve a theory
	Women and men are different in terms of helpfulness. (Exact study direction is not identified)
Associative hypothesis
	- Describes variable interdependency
	- Change in one variable causes change in another variable
	A larger number of people vaccinated against COVID-19 in the region (change in independent variable) will reduce the region’s incidence of COVID-19 infection (change in dependent variable).
Causal hypothesis
	- An effect on dependent variable is predicted from manipulation of independent variable
	A change into a high-fiber diet (independent variable) will reduce the blood sugar level (dependent variable) of the patient.
Null hypothesis
	- A negative statement indicating no relationship or difference between 2 variables
	There is no significant difference in the severity of pulmonary metastases between the new drug (variable 1) and the current drug (variable 2).
Alternative hypothesis
	- Following a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis predicts a relationship between 2 study variables
	The new drug (variable 1) is better on average in reducing the level of pain from pulmonary metastasis than the current drug (variable 2).
Working hypothesis
	- A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
	Dairy cows fed with concentrates of different formulations will produce different amounts of milk.
Statistical hypothesis
	- Assumption about the value of population parameter or relationship among several population characteristics
	- Validity tested by a statistical experiment or analysis
	The mean recovery rate from COVID-19 infection (value of population parameter) is not significantly different between population 1 and population 2.
	There is a positive correlation between the level of stress at the workplace and the number of suicides (population characteristics) among working people in Japan.
Logical hypothesis
	- Offers or proposes an explanation with limited or no extensive evidence
	If healthcare workers provide more educational programs about contraception methods, the number of adolescent pregnancies will be less.
Hypothesis-testing (Quantitative hypothesis-testing research)
	- Quantitative research uses deductive reasoning.
	- This involves the formation of a hypothesis, collection of data in the investigation of the problem, analysis and use of the data from the investigation, and drawing of conclusions to validate or nullify the hypotheses.

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative research questions
Contextual research question
	- Ask the nature of what already exists
	- Individuals or groups function to further clarify and understand the natural context of real-world problems
	What are the experiences of nurses working night shifts in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic? (natural context of real-world problems)
Descriptive research question
	- Aims to describe a phenomenon
	What are the different forms of disrespect and abuse (phenomenon) experienced by Tanzanian women when giving birth in healthcare facilities?
Evaluation research question
	- Examines the effectiveness of existing practice or accepted frameworks
	How effective are decision aids (effectiveness of existing practice) in helping decide whether to give birth at home or in a healthcare facility?
Explanatory research question
	- Clarifies a previously studied phenomenon and explains why it occurs
	Why is there an increase in teenage pregnancy (phenomenon) in Tanzania?
Exploratory research question
	- Explores areas that have not been fully investigated to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
	What factors affect the mental health of medical students (areas that have not yet been fully investigated) during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Generative research question
	- Develops an in-depth understanding of people’s behavior by asking ‘how would’ or ‘what if’ to identify problems and find solutions
	How would the extensive research experience of the behavior of new staff impact the success of the novel drug initiative?
Ideological research question
	- Aims to advance specific ideas or ideologies of a position
	Are Japanese nurses who volunteer in remote African hospitals able to promote humanized care of patients (specific ideas or ideologies) in the areas of safe patient environment, respect of patient privacy, and provision of accurate information related to health and care?
Ethnographic research question
	- Clarifies peoples’ nature, activities, their interactions, and the outcomes of their actions in specific settings
	What are the demographic characteristics, rehabilitative treatments, community interactions, and disease outcomes (nature, activities, their interactions, and the outcomes) of people in China who are suffering from pneumoconiosis?
Phenomenological research question
	- Knows more about the phenomena that have impacted an individual
	What are the lived experiences of parents who have been living with and caring for children with a diagnosis of autism? (phenomena that have impacted an individual)
Grounded theory question
	- Focuses on social processes asking about what happens and how people interact, or uncovering social relationships and behaviors of groups
	What are the problems that pregnant adolescents face in terms of social and cultural norms (social processes), and how can these be addressed?
Qualitative case study question
	- Assesses a phenomenon using different sources of data to answer “why” and “how” questions
	- Considers how the phenomenon is influenced by its contextual situation.
	How does quitting work and assuming the role of a full-time mother (phenomenon assessed) change the lives of women in Japan?

Qualitative research hypotheses
Hypothesis-generating (Qualitative hypothesis-generating research)
	- Qualitative research uses inductive reasoning.
	- This involves data collection from study participants or the literature regarding a phenomenon of interest, using the collected data to develop a formal hypothesis, and using the formal hypothesis as a framework for testing the hypothesis.
	- Qualitative exploratory studies explore areas deeper, clarifying subjective experience and allowing formulation of a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach.

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

Variables	Unclear and weak statement (Statement 1)	Clear and good statement (Statement 2)	Points to avoid
Research question	Which is more effective between smoke moxibustion and smokeless moxibustion?	“Moreover, regarding smoke moxibustion versus smokeless moxibustion, it remains unclear which is more effective, safe, and acceptable to pregnant women, and whether there is any difference in the amount of heat generated.”	1) Vague and unfocused questions
			2) Closed questions simply answerable by yes or no
			3) Questions requiring a simple choice
Hypothesis	The smoke moxibustion group will have higher cephalic presentation.	“Hypothesis 1. The smoke moxibustion stick group (SM group) and smokeless moxibustion stick group (-SLM group) will have higher rates of cephalic presentation after treatment than the control group.	1) Unverifiable hypotheses
		Hypothesis 2. The SM group and SLM group will have higher rates of cephalic presentation at birth than the control group.	2) Incompletely stated groups of comparison
		Hypothesis 3. There will be no significant differences in the well-being of the mother and child among the three groups in terms of the following outcomes: premature birth, premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at < 37 weeks, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, umbilical cord blood pH < 7.1, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and intrauterine fetal death.”	3) Insufficiently described variables or outcomes
Research objective	To determine which is more effective between smoke moxibustion and smokeless moxibustion.	“The specific aims of this pilot study were (a) to compare the effects of smoke moxibustion and smokeless moxibustion treatments with the control group as a possible supplement to ECV for converting breech presentation to cephalic presentation and increasing adherence to the newly obtained cephalic position, and (b) to assess the effects of these treatments on the well-being of the mother and child.”	1) Poor understanding of the research question and hypotheses
Research objective			2) Insufficient description of population, variables, or study outcomes

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

Variables	Unclear and weak statement (Statement 1)	Clear and good statement (Statement 2)	Points to avoid
Research question	Does disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur in childbirth in Tanzania?	How does disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur and what are the types of physical and psychological abuses observed in midwives’ actual care during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania?	1) Ambiguous or oversimplistic questions
Research question			2) Questions unverifiable by data collection and analysis
Hypothesis	Disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur in childbirth in Tanzania.	Hypothesis 1: Several types of physical and psychological abuse by midwives in actual care occur during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania.	1) Statements simply expressing facts
Hypothesis	Disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur in childbirth in Tanzania.	Hypothesis 2: Weak nursing and midwifery management contribute to the D&A of women during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania.	2) Insufficiently described concepts or variables
Research objective	To describe disrespect and abuse (D&A) in childbirth in Tanzania.	“This study aimed to describe from actual observations the respectful and disrespectful care received by women from midwives during their labor period in two hospitals in urban Tanzania.”	1) Statements unrelated to the research question and hypotheses
Research objective			2) Unattainable or unexplorable objectives

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jkms-37-e121-g001.jpg

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jkms-37-e121-g002.jpg

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
- Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
“BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
- Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
“Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
- Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
“BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
- Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
“Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
- Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
“Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
- A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
“As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
“In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
- Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
“We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
“Conclusion
Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
“We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
- An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
“Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
“Statistical Analysis
( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
“Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
“ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
“This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
“We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
“ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
“In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
“This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
“ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

Your Article Library

Top 11 characteristics of a good report.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This article throws light upon the top eleven characteristics of a good report. The characteristics are: 1. Simplicity 2. Clarity 3. Brevity 4. Positivity 5. Punctuation 6. Approach 7. Readability 8. Accuracy 9. Logical Sequence 10. Proper Form 11. Presentation.

Characteristic # 1. Simplicity:

The language shall be as simple as possible so that a report is easily understandable. Jargons and technical words should be avoided. Even in a technical report there shall be restricted use of technical terms if it has to be presented to laymen.

Characteristic # 2. Clarity:

The language shall be lucid and straight, clearly expressing what is intended to be expressed. For that the report has to be written in correct form and following correct steps.

Characteristic # 3. Brevity:

A report shall not be unnecessarily long so that the patience of the reader is not lost and there is no confusion of ideas. But, at the same time, a report must be complete. A report is not an essay.

Characteristic # 4. Positivity:

As far as possible positive statements should be made instead of negative ones. For example, it is better to say what should be done and not what should not be done.

Characteristic # 5. Punctuation :

Punctuations have to be carefully and correctly used otherwise the meaning of sentences may be misunderstood or misrepresented.

Characteristic # 6. Approach:

There are two types of approaches: (a) Person—When a report is written based on personal enquiry or observations, the approach shall be personal and the sentences shall be in the first person and in direct speech, (b) Impersonal—When a report is prepared as a source of information and when it is merely factual (e.g. a report on a meeting), the approach shall be impersonal and the sentences shall be in the third person and in indirect speech.

Characteristic # 7. Readability:

The keynote of a report is readability. The style of presentation and the diction (use of words) shall be such that the readers find it attractive and he is compelled to read the report from the beginning to the end.’ Then only a report serves its purpose. A report on the same subject matter can be written differently for different classes of readers.

Characteristic # 8. Accuracy:

A report shall be accurate when facts are stated in it. It shall not be biased with personal feelings of the writer.

Characteristic # 9. Logical Sequence:

The points in a report shall be arranged with a logical sequence, step by step and not in a haphazard manner. A planning is necessary before a report is prepared.

Characteristic # 10. Proper Form:

A report must be in the proper form. Sometimes there are statutory forms to follow.

Characteristic # 11. Presentation:

A report needs an attractive presentation. It depends on the quality of typing or printing as well as quality of paper used. Big companies make very attractive and colourful Annual Reports.

Principles of a Good Research Report
Report Control System in Large Organisations | Preparation of a Report

Comments are closed.

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Regular Article
Open access
Published: 18 September 2021
Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Drishti Yadav ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1

94k Accesses

39 Citations

71 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect. Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect. Improving Quality: Strategies . Section How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect. Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect. Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect. Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure 1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure 2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article Google Scholar

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

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

Qualitative research
Evaluative criteria
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base
Starting the research process
Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Published on October 26, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research question pinpoints exactly what you want to find out in your work. A good research question is essential to guide your research paper , dissertation , or thesis .

All research questions should be:

Focused on a single problem or issue
Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
Specific enough to answer thoroughly
Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

How to write a research question, what makes a strong research question, using sub-questions to strengthen your main research question, research questions quiz, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research questions.

You can follow these steps to develop a strong research question:

Choose your topic
Do some preliminary reading about the current state of the field
Narrow your focus to a specific niche
Identify the research problem that you will address

The way you frame your question depends on what your research aims to achieve. The table below shows some examples of how you might formulate questions for different purposes.

	Research question formulations
Describing and exploring
Explaining and testing
Evaluating and acting	is X

Using your research problem to develop your research question

Example research problem	Example research question(s)
Teachers at the school do not have the skills to recognize or properly guide gifted children in the classroom.	What practical techniques can teachers use to better identify and guide gifted children?
Young people increasingly engage in the “gig economy,” rather than traditional full-time employment. However, it is unclear why they choose to do so.	What are the main factors influencing young people’s decisions to engage in the gig economy?

Note that while most research questions can be answered with various types of research , the way you frame your question should help determine your choices.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them. The criteria below can help you evaluate the strength of your research question.

Focused and researchable

Criteria	Explanation
Focused on a single topic	Your central research question should work together with your research problem to keep your work focused. If you have multiple questions, they should all clearly tie back to your central aim.
Answerable using	Your question must be answerable using and/or , or by reading scholarly sources on the to develop your argument. If such data is impossible to access, you likely need to rethink your question.
Not based on value judgements	Avoid subjective words like , , and . These do not give clear criteria for answering the question.

Feasible and specific

Criteria	Explanation
Answerable within practical constraints	Make sure you have enough time and resources to do all research required to answer your question. If it seems you will not be able to gain access to the data you need, consider narrowing down your question to be more specific.
Uses specific, well-defined concepts	All the terms you use in the research question should have clear meanings. Avoid vague language, jargon, and too-broad ideas.
Does not demand a conclusive solution, policy, or course of action	Research is about informing, not instructing. Even if your project is focused on a practical problem, it should aim to improve understanding rather than demand a ready-made solution. If ready-made solutions are necessary, consider conducting instead. Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as it is solved. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time.

Criteria

Explanation

Answerable within practical constraints

Make sure you have enough time and resources to do all research required to answer your question. If it seems you will not be able to gain access to the data you need, consider narrowing down your question to be more specific.

Uses specific, well-defined concepts

All the terms you use in the research question should have clear meanings. Avoid vague language, jargon, and too-broad ideas.

Does not demand a conclusive solution, policy, or course of action

Research is about informing, not instructing. Even if your project is focused on a practical problem, it should aim to improve understanding rather than demand a ready-made solution.

If ready-made solutions are necessary, consider conducting instead. Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as it is solved. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time.

Complex and arguable

Criteria	Explanation
Cannot be answered with or	Closed-ended, / questions are too simple to work as good research questions—they don’t provide enough for robust investigation and discussion.
Cannot be answered with easily-found facts	If you can answer the question through a single Google search, book, or article, it is probably not complex enough. A good research question requires original data, synthesis of multiple sources, and original interpretation and argumentation prior to providing an answer.

Relevant and original

Criteria	Explanation
Addresses a relevant problem	Your research question should be developed based on initial reading around your . It should focus on addressing a problem or gap in the existing knowledge in your field or discipline.
Contributes to a timely social or academic debate	The question should aim to contribute to an existing and current debate in your field or in society at large. It should produce knowledge that future researchers or practitioners can later build on.
Has not already been answered	You don’t have to ask something that nobody has ever thought of before, but your question should have some aspect of originality. For example, you can focus on a specific location, or explore a new angle.

Chances are that your main research question likely can’t be answered all at once. That’s why sub-questions are important: they allow you to answer your main question in a step-by-step manner.

Good sub-questions should be:

Less complex than the main question
Focused only on 1 type of research
Presented in a logical order

Here are a few examples of descriptive and framing questions:

Descriptive: According to current government arguments, how should a European bank tax be implemented?
Descriptive: Which countries have a bank tax/levy on financial transactions?
Framing: How should a bank tax/levy on financial transactions look at a European level?

Keep in mind that sub-questions are by no means mandatory. They should only be asked if you need the findings to answer your main question. If your main question is simple enough to stand on its own, it’s okay to skip the sub-question part. As a rule of thumb, the more complex your subject, the more sub-questions you’ll need.

Try to limit yourself to 4 or 5 sub-questions, maximum. If you feel you need more than this, it may be indication that your main research question is not sufficiently specific. In this case, it’s is better to revisit your problem statement and try to tighten your main question up.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

Methodology

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

As you cannot possibly read every source related to your topic, it’s important to evaluate sources to assess their relevance. Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth.

This involves:

Reading abstracts , prefaces, introductions , and conclusions
Looking at the table of contents to determine the scope of the work
Consulting the index for key terms or the names of important scholars

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

Researchability
Feasibility and specificity
Relevance and originality

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to define a research problem | ideas & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

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

Section 1- Evidence-based practice (EBP)

Chapter 6: Components of a Research Report

Components of a research report.

Partido, B.B.

Elements of research report

Introduction	What is the issue?
Methods	What methods have been used to investigate the issue?
Results	What was found?
Discussion	What are the implications of the findings?

The research report contains four main areas:

Introduction – What is the issue? What is known? What is not known? What are you trying to find out? This sections ends with the purpose and specific aims of the study.
Methods – The recipe for the study. If someone wanted to perform the same study, what information would they need? How will you answer your research question? This part usually contains subheadings: Participants, Instruments, Procedures, Data Analysis,
Results – What was found? This is organized by specific aims and provides the results of the statistical analysis.
Discussion – How do the results fit in with the existing literature? What were the limitations and areas of future research?

Publishing Options
Open Access Discounts
Institutions
Researchers
News & Studies
1. How to develop and report good research questions

Developing a good research question

Learning outcomes: ➔ Identify and describe the characteristics of a good research question ➔ Explain three key ingredients for developing a research question ➔ Name and briefly describe the FINER criteria ➔ Describe several sources from which good research questions arise ➔ Draft a one-sentence research question and 1/2 page describing the significance of your research question.

Reporting the research question in your paper

Learning outcomes: ➔ Understand the purpose of the introduction section ➔ Explain what was known, and not known about the study’s topic and about the specific research question ➔ Report the study’s research question clearly ➔ Understand what makes a good research question ➔ Use evidence based, effective writing to introduce the study ➔ Use references/literature review effectively and sparingly.

Additional Resource: Video/webinar by Trish Groves: How to develop and communicate good research questions

Explore More
2. Developing and writing protocols
3. Choosing the best study design
4. How to do ethical research
5. How to write a research paper
6. The essentials of running a clinical trial
7. Picking the right journal and getting published
8. Avoiding scientific misconduct

Research Process
Manuscript Preparation
Manuscript Review
Publication Process
Publication Recognition
Language Editing Services
Translation Services

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

3 minute read
201.5K views

Table of Contents

What makes a good researcher? Is it some undefinable, innate genius, or is it something that we can practice and build upon? If it was just the former, then there would be far fewer innovations in the history of humankind than there have been. A careful look at researchers through the ages reveals that they all have certain attributes in common that have helped contribute to their success.

The characteristics of a good researcher:

1. curiosity.

They ask questions. An endless thirst for knowledge is what sets the best of the best apart from the others. Good researchers constantly strive to learn more, not just about their own field, but about other fields as well. The world around us is fascinating, be it the physics behind the way light refracts, or the anthropological constructions of our society. A good researcher keeps exploring the world and keeps searching for answers.

2. Analytical ability and foresight

They look for connections. Information is useless without interpretation. What drives research forward is finding meaning in our observations and data. Good researchers evaluate data from every angle and search for patterns. They explore cause and effect and untangle the tricky web that interconnects everyday phenomena. And then take it one step further to ask, ‘What is the bigger picture? How will the research develop in the future?’

3. Determination

They try, try, and try again. Research can be a frustrating experience. Experiments may not pan out how we expect them to. Even worse, sometimes experiments may run smoothly until they are 95% complete before failing. What sets an average researcher apart from a truly good one? The truly good researcher perseveres. They accept this disappointment, learn from the failure, reevaluate their experiment, and keep moving forward.

4. Collaboration

Teamwork makes the dream work. Contrary to the common perception of the solitary genius in their lab, research is an extremely collaborative process. There is simply too much to do for just one person to do it all. Moreover, research is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary. It is impossible for just one person to have expertise in all these fields. In general, research is conducted in teams , with each researcher having their individual roles and responsibilities. Being able to coordinate, communicate, and get along with team members is a major factor that can contribute to one’s success as a researcher.

5. Communication

They get their message across. Communication skills are an essential asset for every researcher. Not only do they have to communicate with their team members, but they also have to communicate with co-authors, journals, publishers, and funders. Whether it is writing a crisp and effective abstract, presenting at a conference, or writing a persuasive grant proposal to secure research funding, communication appears everywhere in a researcher’s life. The message in the old adage, ‘If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ applies to research too. A discovery could be groundbreaking, but what is the use if the researcher can’t communicate this discovery to the rest of the world?

These are just a few of the skills required by researchers to make it to the top of their field. Other attributes like creativity and time management are also worth mentioning. Nevertheless, having one or more of these top five characteristics will make the research process smoother for you and increase the chances of positive results. Set yourself up for success by building up these skills, focusing on excellence, and asking for help when you need it. Elsevier Author Services is here to aid you at every step of the research journey. From translation services by experts in the field, to preparing your manuscript for publication, to helping you submit the best possible grant proposal, you can trust us to guide you in your journey to doing great research.

What is the Background of a Study and How Should it be Written?

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Doctor doing a Biomedical Research Paper

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Top 10 Qualities and Characteristics of a Good Researcher

Year after year, people with different personalities and backgrounds step into the field of research eager to develop the key qualities of a good researcher , only to find themselves faced with anxiety and self-doubt. Becoming a good researcher is a challenging task that requires a combination of skills and attributes as well as time, dedication, and a lot of hard work.

So what are the qualities of a good researcher and how does one build these must-have characteristics? This article answers this by sharing the top 10 qualities of a good researcher that you must work to develop, strengthen, and apply on your journey to research success.

Table of Contents

Top 10 qualities of a good researcher

Curiosity:  A curious mind and an ability to look at things from different perspectives is what makes a good researcher better. Good researchers are observant about the world around them and open to new ideas and possibilities; they are always asking questions and looking for answers. This ability to see the bigger picture while being curious about the smaller details is what makes a good researcher explore new ideas, test hypotheses, and make new discoveries.
Critical thinking:  Successful researchers can think critically about the information they gather while reading about new developments in their own and related fields. This is an essential characteristic of a good researcher . Instead of simply accepting existing knowledge as fact, you need to have the ability to analyze and evaluate the validity and reliability of sources, consider alternative explanations for results you observe, and find connections between seemingly unrelated concepts.

Creativity:  The qualities of a good researcher do not just include curiosity and critical thinking, but also thinking creatively when it comes to problem solving. Nurturing the ability to think outside the box and come up with novel and often unconventional solutions to challenges you face is how to become a better researcher. This allows you to come up with more ground-breaking research studies and results addressing issues that others might easily miss.
Objectivity:  Nurturing preconceived notions is detrimental to research. Avoid temptations to make unconclusive statements or introduce personal biases into research, which will impact your research and standing in the long run. Remember, building essential qualities of a good researcher means consciously keeping aside personal preferences and biases and applying sound judgement to your work even when under pressure.
Collaborative spirit:  An important characteristic of a good researcher is being able to work well with others. With a shift toward more collaborative research, successful researchers often connect with and work with peers to come up with innovative approaches to research problems. While sharing ideas and partnering with other researchers can lead to breakthroughs and boost your researcher reputation, it also opens the door for your work to reach and potentially benefit a wider audience.
Communication skills:  An added strength of a good researcher is being able to communicate your findings clearly and effectively, which is a key contributor to your success. This is applicable when writing your manuscripts, presenting at conferences, as well as when seeking funding for your work. Good researchers can explain their research to both specialists and non-specialists to ensure their work is understood and appreciated by a wider audience.
Attention to detail:  One of the key qualities of a good researcher is being meticulous in your work. Researchers need to pay attention to every detail, from the design of an experiment to the analysis of data, and further in writing and submitting their manuscript for publication. This crucial characteristic can help you ensure your research is accurate, testable, and reliable, and also gives your manuscripts a better chance of acceptance.
Time management:  To understand what are the characteristics of a good researcher , first ask yourself if you manage your time well. Most successful researchers organize, prioritize, and optimize their time efficiently, allowing them to not only keep up with their responsibilities but also make time for personal tasks. If you’re being pulled in different directions or overwhelmed with trying to manage your research, stay updated on your research reading, or meeting your writing deadlines, consider honing this skill as a prerequisite to becoming a good researcher.
Persistence & flexibility:  Research can be a long, difficult process with several hurdles and changes along the way. One of the key requirements to becoming a good researcher is being able to adapt to new technologies and changing circumstances and persevere despite setbacks and challenges that inevitably arise. Developing the qualities of a good researcher means anticipating problems, adjusting plans to tackle challenges head-on, and being patient while moving forward toward achieving your goals.
Focus on self-care:  Anxiety, stress, and mental health issues are common among academics. Successful researchers are better equipped to manage this by adopting a healthy balanced lifestyle. Understanding what works for you can also improve your efficiency and productivity. Being aware of your strengths and weaknesses and using this to your advantage is key to becoming a good researcher.

In conclusion, perfecting the characteristics of a good researcher is not quick or easy, but by working consistently toward developing or strengthening these essential qualities, you will be well on your way to finding success as a well-established researcher.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !

Annex vs Appendix: What is the difference?

Simple Random Sampling: Definition, Methods, and Examples

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
Consensus Statement
Published: 19 July 2024

Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of clinical relevance: the BePRECISE checklist

Siew S. Lim 1 ,
Zhila Semnani-Azad ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7822-5072 2 ,
Mario L. Morieri ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6864-0547 3 , 4 ,
Ashley H. Ng 5 , 6 , 7 ,
Abrar Ahmad 8 ,
Hugo Fitipaldi 8 ,
Jacqueline Boyle 1 ,
Christian Collin 9 ,
John M. Dennis ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7171-732X 10 ,
Claudia Langenberg ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5017-7344 7 , 11 ,
Ruth J. F. Loos 12 , 13 ,
Melinda Morrison 14 ,
Michele Ramsay ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4156-4801 15 ,
Arun J. Sanyal ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8682-5748 16 ,
Naveed Sattar ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1604-2593 17 ,
Marie-France Hivert ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7752-2585 18 ,
Maria F. Gomez ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6210-3142 8 ,
Jordi Merino ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8312-1438 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 ,
Deirdre K. Tobias 2 , 22 ,
Michael I. Trenell 23 ,
Stephen S. Rich ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3872-7793 24 ,
Jennifer L. Sargent 25 &
Paul W. Franks ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0520-7604 2 , 26

Nature Medicine volume 30 , pages 1874–1881 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1186 Accesses

22 Altmetric

Metrics details

Medical research
Translational research

Precision medicine should aspire to reduce error and improve accuracy in medical and health recommendations by comparison with contemporary practice, while maintaining safety and cost-effectiveness. The etiology, clinical manifestation and prognosis of diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and fatty liver disease are heterogeneous. Without standardized reporting, this heterogeneity, combined with the diversity of research tools used in precision medicine studies, makes comparisons across studies and implementation of the findings challenging. Specific recommendations for reporting precision medicine research do not currently exist. The BePRECISE (Better Precision-data Reporting of Evidence from Clinical Intervention Studies & Epidemiology) consortium, comprising 23 experts in precision medicine, cardiometabolic diseases, statistics, editorial and lived experience, conducted a scoping review and participated in a modified Delphi and nominal group technique process to develop guidelines for reporting precision medicine research. The BePRECISE checklist comprises 23 items organized into 5 sections that align with typical sections of a scientific publication. A specific section about health equity serves to encourage precision medicine research to be inclusive of individuals and communities that are traditionally under-represented in clinical research and/or underserved by health systems. Adoption of BePRECISE by investigators, reviewers and editors will facilitate and accelerate equitable clinical implementation of precision medicine.

Translating evidence into practice: eligibility criteria fail to eliminate clinically significant differences between real-world and study populations

The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk

Constructing a finer-grained representation of clinical trial results from ClinicalTrials.gov

Precision medicine represents an evolution in the long history of evidence-based medicine and healthcare. Spanning disease classifications and risk factor boundaries, precision medicine is underpinned by four key ‘pillars’ (prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis) 1 , 2 . The overarching objective of precision medicine is to reduce error and improve accuracy in medical and health recommendations compared with contemporary approaches 3 . Precision medicine solutions should meet or improve on existing standards for safety. They should also be compatible with the individual’s preferences, capabilities and needs and tailored to the cultural and societal conditions of the population. Furthermore, precision medicine should be cost-effective and enhance health equity by increasing access to better medical and healthcare practices for the people most in need.

Cardiometabolic diseases are the leading causes of mortality globally 4 . With this burden projected to worsen over the coming decades 5 , innovative approaches to disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment are urgently needed. A plethora of precision medicine approaches are being explored in translational and clinical research. However, translating, scaling and implementing these findings for clinical practice have proved difficult. The heterogeneous nature of disease presentation and the etiology of cardiometabolic diseases contribute to these challenges, as does the range and diversity of clinical information, molecular data types and computational analyses used in precision medicine research.

The ability to synthesize data and reproduce research findings are tenets of the modern scientific process, which help maximize progress in evidence-based healthcare and medicine. The ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 was supported by a series of systematic evidence reviews 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . The report focused on key dimensions of precision diabetes medicine, including evidence for prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis in monogenic forms of diabetes, gestational diabetes, and type 1 and type 2 diabetes. A key finding from the report and the systematic evidence reviews underpinning it is that the published literature on precision diabetes medicine lacks evidence standardization or benchmarking against contemporary standards and often overlooks under-represented populations, who tend to bear the greatest burden of diabetes and its complications.

In the present report, we present reporting guidelines for clinically relevant precision medicine research, using common cardiometabolic diseases as the example. We first evaluated a representative sample of the literature on precision medicine in cardiometabolic diseases, determining that the quality of evidence reporting is low, akin to the level previously observed for precision diabetes medicine 3 . We then generated consensus guidelines and a corresponding checklist for reporting of research germane to precision medicine. The purpose of these guidelines is to improve reporting standards so that: (1) evidence can be combined and synthesized in a way that yields meaningful insights from collective efforts; (2) claims of clinical utility can be benchmarked against contemporary standards; and (3) end-user engagement and health equity will be strengthened.

Scoping review

The literature search focused on identifying precision medicine publications using the term ‘precision medicine’ and associated proxy nomenclature, among other keywords and phrases ( Supplementary Methods ). The search identified 2,679 publications, of which 13 were excluded owing to duplication. The remaining 2,666 papers were screened, of which 47 were randomly selected (through computer-generated, random-number sequence) for full text review and quality assessment. The summary (count and percentage) of each quality assessment item across all papers and the quality assessment results for each paper are shown in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 . This quality assessment yielded a median score of 6 (interquartile range = 4–7) with none of the papers achieving a positive quality evaluation across all 11 items (Fig. 1 ).

Median scores of 47 published precision medicine manuscripts randomly selected for full text review and quality assessment through computer-generated, random-number sequence. IQR, Interquartile range.

A summary of the itemized evidence reporting quality is shown in Supplementary Table 2 . Most abstracts (81%) reported findings relevant to the four pillars of precision medicine (prevention, diagnosis, treatment and/or prognosis) and provided sufficient detail in the methods sections to determine whether the study was designed to test hypotheses on precision medicine (77%), details about participant eligibility (75%) and descriptions of standard reporting definitions (70%). The items that were less frequently reported were the description of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in determining the impact and utility of precision medicine (15%), the inclusion of the term ‘precision medicine’ in the title or abstract (17%), the reporting of measures of discriminative or predictive accuracy (23%), the description of the approach used to control risk of false-positive reporting (28%), the reporting of effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals and units underlying effect estimates (57%) and the reporting of a statistical test for comparisons of subgroups (for example, interaction test) (60%).

Stakeholder survey

Delphi panel demographics.

Of the 23 Delphi panelists, 22 (96%) completed Delphi survey 1, 18 (78%) and attended the full-panel consensus meeting and 22 (96%) completed Delphi survey 2. All panelists engaged in further extensive dialog around key topics through online communication.

Delphi results

The initial checklist in Delphi survey 1 contained 68 items. After Delphi survey 1 and the full-panel consensus meeting, 2 items were added, resulting in 70 items in Delphi survey 2. At the Consensus meeting, it was determined that the checklist should be used together with existing relevant checklists. These include the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 17 and STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) 18 checklists for interventional trials and observational studies, respectively. This led to a recommendation to remove items covered in established checklists (Supplementary Fig. 1 ). The scoring from Delphi survey 1, Delphi survey 2 and notes from the Consensus meetings are as shown in Supplementary Table 4 . After Delphi survey 2, the consensus was to retain 25 items across 6 core categories.

Guidelines finalization

The executive oversight committee reviewed the panel scores and free-text comments from all the rounds of Delphi surveys to determine the final checklist items and wording. The group discussed five items with inconsistent consensus (between 70% and 80% consensus), resulting in the removal of one item because it overlapped conceptually with another item (17b and 17g in Supplementary Table 4 ). It was also determined that ‘health equity’ should be included as an overarching theme, thereby encouraging users of the checklist to consider this topic more broadly when describing precision medicine research. This resulted in removal of two items.

The final checklist comprised 23 items that the executive oversight committee concluded are unique and essential for reporting standards in precision medicine. The final BePRECISE checklist is presented in Table 1 , with a downloadable version of the checklist available online ( https://www.be-precise.org , and https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ ).

Explanation of checklist Items

The checklist and the explanation of each item are presented in Table 1 . The BePRECISE checklist is intended to complement existing guidelines such as CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting System for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 19 .

These reporting guidelines use the terms ‘precision medicine’ and ‘personalized medicine’ as defined in the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 , as follows:

‘Precision medicine focuses on minimizing errors and improving accuracy in medical decisions and health recommendations. It seeks to maximize efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety, access for those in need and compliance compared with contemporary evidence-based medicine. Precision medicine emphasizes tailoring diagnostics or therapeutics (prevention or treatment) to subgroups of populations sharing similar characteristics.’

Personalized medicine refers to ‘the use of a person’s own data to objectively gauge the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of therapeutics, and, subjectively, to tailor health recommendations and/or medical decisions to the individual’s preferences, circumstances, and capabilities’.

Accordingly, personalized medicine can be viewed as being nested within the broader concept of precision medicine.

Equity and PPIE (E1–E4)

Equity, diversity and inclusivity considerations and the involvement of patients and public is a crosscutting theme in this checklist. Where relevant, papers should include a description of how equity has been considered, including diversity and inclusivity of study participants, and whether there was PPIE. Cohort selection biases and probable risks when extrapolating the study’s results to other populations should be clearly described.

The selection of participants should consider racial, ethnic, ancestral, geographic and sociodemographic characteristics 20 , and include an explanation for the inclusion or exclusion of groups that are typically under-represented in clinical research (E1 and E2). Race and ethnicity are social constructs but, as they are categories recognized by some government and health authorities in contexts that are relevant to precision medicine, we have elected to retain inclusion of these somewhat controversial terms here.

PPIE in any part of the study should be described, including but not limited to design, conduct and reporting (E3).

Where possible, and ideally with guidance from those with lived experience, the potential impact of the research findings on the target population(s) should be discussed (E4). Consider co-writing these aspects with PPIE representatives.

Title and abstract (1.1–1.4)

In the title and/or abstract, the term ‘precision medicine’ should be included to highlight that the research is relevant to precision medicine (1.1). Given that precision medicine is an approach that can be used in several research contexts, the study design (for example, randomized clinical trial (RCT), retrospective observational) and the research question should be stated clearly (1.2). Use of the terms ‘prevention’, ‘diagnostics’, ‘treatment’ or ‘prognostics’ is needed to highlight which pillar of precision medicine the study concerns 3 (1.3). To ensure transparency about generalizability and/or applicability of the findings to a specific population or subgroup, the study population must be described (1.4).

Background and objectives (2.1–2.2)

The background should clearly describe the rationale for the chosen precision medicine approach, including the context and prior work that led to it and the specific hypothesis being tested (2.1). To provide the reader with greater context, papers should also state the nature and objective of the precision medicine study as ‘etiological’, ‘discovery’, ‘predictive’ and/or ‘confirmatory’ (2.2).

Methods (general)

Although this reporting guide focuses on clarifying elements of papers that are germane to precision medicine, authors are strongly encouraged to ensure that methods also adhere to other appropriate reporting guidelines (for example, CONSORT and STROBE), with the overarching goal of ensuring that the study protocol described therein could, in principle, be accurately reproduced by third-party investigators.

Methods (3.1–3.7)

Methods should describe the aspects of a study design relating to precision medicine in such detail that the design can be understood and replicated (3.1). The rationale for the choice of primary outcome should be clearly stated (3.2).

To enable readers to assess bias and interpret the study findings, this section should state how the participants were identified and enrolled in the study (4.1) and (if applicable) how a subset of a broader group of participants was selected from an existing study (3.3). Any markers used for stratification or prediction should be explicitly stated with an explanation of how the marker(s) was(were) chosen (3.4).

The sample size and how it was derived should be described, for example, following a priori power calculations, or if the sample size was limited primarily by availability or cost, and any implications that this might have for type 2 error (3.5). Authors should also describe attempts to minimize false-positive discovery, especially when multiple testing has occurred (3.5).

If any replication and/or validation analyses were undertaken, a clear description should be given of the approach, including whether these analyses were planned and relevant datasets identified before or after conclusion of primary analyses (3.6), in addition to justification for the sample size and choice of replication cohort (3.7).

Results (4.1–4.4)

The number of participants in the study should be provided, along with a table of baseline characteristics (4.1). If the analysis involves comparison (rather than discovery) of subgroups, the baseline characteristics and numbers of participants should be provided by the subgroup.

Results from any statistical tests done should be reported. Any comparisons of subgroups should include appropriate test statistics, which may include tests of interaction and heterogeneity, and in cluster analyses tests of probability for cluster assignment (for example, relative entropy statistic) (4.2).

Key findings should be benchmarked against current reference standards or practice, if they exist, so that the reader can determine the likely benefit of translating the study’s findings into clinical practice. This may include, for example, the comparison of the new and existing approaches using tests of discriminative (cross-sectional) or predictive (prospective) accuracy, or estimation of net reclassification or changes in numbers needed to treat. If benchmarking has not been done, a clear explanation should be given (4.3).

If validation and/or replication analyses were undertaken, the results of all such attempts at analyses should be clearly described (4.4).

Discussion (5.1–5.2)

The paper should include a balanced and nuanced discussion of any limitations to the interpretation and/or implementation of the reported findings. The limitations section should consider biases that might prevent fair and equitable generalization of the study’s findings to other populations, particularly to groups that are under-represented within the published literature. Authors are also encouraged to consider other potential biases that might arise with stratified and subgroup analyses (5.1).

If there is a direct clinical implication of the study’s findings, authors should describe how their findings might be applied in clinical practice. This might, for example, include an explanation of how any algorithms, technologies or risk markers that stem directly from the research might benefit clinical practice.

The BePRECISE guidelines are intended to enhance publication of research on precision medicine by improving quality and standardization of reporting. In turn, it is anticipated that this will help improve and accelerate the impact of precision medicine research on the health and well-being of target populations and individuals.

BePRECISE was initiated to follow up on recommendations from the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 . The report, founded on 16 systematic evidence reviews summarizing research described in >100,000 published papers, found a low degree of standardization across the published literature, with a broad absence of key information needed for benchmarking against contemporary standards, validation analyses and meaningful interpretation of research findings.

Implementation of the checklist

These reporting guidelines were derived through structured evaluation and consensus processes undertaken by subject-matter experts in precision medicine for complex traits. The report is premised on cardiometabolic disease translational research but is relevant to translation of research in other complex diseases. These guidelines are directed toward authors describing translational research in precision medicine, as well as for journal editors handling submissions in this field. These guidelines may also be of value to funding agencies, policy advisers and health educators.

The BePRECISE guidelines are designed to be used together with existing study-specific checklists such as CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 and STORMS (Strengthening the Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies) 21 . Publications relevant to precision medicine cover diverse topics and study designs; thus, to accommodate this diversity, we recommend that authors elaborate on relevant details related to checklist items to facilitate manuscript evaluations by journal editors and peer reviewers who will determine whether a given paper has addressed the BePRECISE checklist criteria.

Health equity

Precision medicine has the potential to improve health equity by making health advice and medical therapies more accessible to those in most need and by being more effective and acceptable to the recipient than contemporary clinical approaches. Nevertheless, as the ‘inverse care law’ 22 highlights, the best healthcare often reaches those who need it least. We believe that precision medicine research should place emphasis on the development of solutions for people in greatest need, regardless of who or where they are.

Ensuring representation of underserved populations, where the disease burden can be high, is important because determining the effectiveness of precision medicine solutions requires data from the target populations. Research in population genetics provides clear evidence of this, where the predictive accuracy of polygenic burden scores can be low when applied outside the data-source population, even when these populations are geographically proximal 23 , 24 . Raising awareness of these challenges by discussing them in the health literature and, ultimately, by addressing them through improved study design could facilitate enhancement of health equity using precision medicine approaches.

Promoting equity through precision medicine requires awareness of the many biases. For this reason, the BePRECISE guidelines place emphasis on equity, diversity and inclusion as an overarching concept throughout the checklist.

As with health equity, the BePRECISE guidelines position PPIE as a crosscutting theme to motivate its consideration in all elements of precision medicine translational research. We encourage those using the BePRECISE checklist to follow existing guidance on PPIE 25 . Ensuring that the eventual recipients of precision medicine solutions are adequately represented in the planning, execution and reporting of precision medicine research will help maximize the translational value of the research. Ideally, research teams should include members of the communities that will eventually benefit from this work, including in leadership roles, although to achieve this will often require long-term capacity strengthening. This engagement will help ensure that the relevance and utility of the research output are maximized. It will also strengthen the potential for target populations to determine their own health trajectories. Where this is not immediately achievable, establishing authentic partnerships with representatives from these target populations should be prioritized. This may involve community consultations, training opportunities and co-creation of research proposals with assigned community members, through dissemination and translation of research findings. Moreover, the selection of study participants should be done equitably and result in study cohorts that are representative of the populations who are the focus of the research 26 . The use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures should be considered during the research design and execution phases, and reported in research papers wherever possible following established guidelines 27 , 28 . Doing so will amplify the patient voice and maximize the relevance of the research to the target populations and individuals.

Cost-effectiveness

The translation of precision medicine research into practice will invariably depend on it being cost-effective, affordable and accessible. This initial version of the BePRECISE checklist does not include checklist items pertaining directly to these important factors. The consensus view was that such analyses are sufficiently complex to stand alone and are likely to be outside the scope of most current precision medicine research. This topic may be revisited in subsequent versions of the checklist.

Strengths and limitations

We believe that implementation of the BePRECISE checklist in the context of academic publishing will strengthen standardization of reporting across precision medicine research, ultimately enabling improved and equitable translation of research findings into the clinical and public health settings. The checklist will also encourage investigators to improve study design, particularly with respect to health equity. Other strengths include rigor of our consensus methods and the diverse range of societal backgrounds and expertise of our group.

We acknowledge that precision medicine in many complex diseases is relatively nascent (with the exception of precision oncology), with the needs of the field and stakeholders evolving. We plan to evaluate uptake of the checklist among journals and authors to assess whether items should be added or removed from the checklist as the field matures. An additional limitation is that the BePRECISE consensus group is small by comparison with similar efforts in other fields of research. We will involve a larger group of experts with broader global and technical representation in future efforts, including increased representation from low- and middle-income countries and individuals with more diverse lived experiences. Additional technical expertise may also be needed from other disciplines, including health economics and health systems administration, for example.

We acknowledge that journal formatting requirements and procedures may not always entirely align with the checklist specifications. We removed a checklist item for provision of a plain language summary, for example, because many journal formats are presently unable to accommodate this type of additional material. However, we hope that in the future editors and publishers of medical and scientific journals will include space for this incredibly important component that facilitates scientific communication with the public.

We defer to editorial and reviewer discretion in implementation of the BePRECISE checklist. Although the BePRECISE checklist items are included to support best scientific practices, at least in the short term, some ongoing precision medicine studies will not have addressed the health equity or PPIE considerations in their design. We do not expect that insufficient attention to these items would be a sole reason for not considering a manuscript for review, unless blatant disregard for participant and/or community safety, privacy or respect has occurred in the study design and/or conduct. Over time, however, we hope that health equity and PPIE will be considered as standard practice in precision medicine research and implementation.

Conclusions

The BePRECISE reporting guidelines have been generated through a structured consensus process to address the need for better reporting of clinical translational research in precision medicine in common complex diseases. The burgeoning literature on this topic is reported inconsistently, impeding the assimilation, syntheses and interpretation of evidence. There is a general lack of benchmarking against contemporary standards, a situation that makes it impossible to determine whether new precision medicine approaches might be beneficial, feasible and sustainable. Moreover, very little existing precision medicine research has incorporated PPIE or focused on the groups within societies most in need of innovative precision medicine solutions. These barriers limit the positive impact that precision medicine could have on the health and well-being of those most in need. The BePRECISE reporting guidelines are intended to help address these and other important challenges.

Consortium structure

The BePRECISE Consortium comprised an executive oversight committee (S.S.L., Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F.), which oversaw the full process, with representation across key domain areas, and an evidence evaluation group (Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.A., H.F., M.-F.H., M.F.G., J.M., D.K.T., M.I.T., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F.), which undertook the scoping review to determine current reporting standards. All consortium members participated in a Delphi consensus process 29 . The Consortium chair and co-chair were P.W.F. and S.S.L., respectively (Supplementary Table 1 ).

Protocols and registrations

A scoping review protocol was developed before initiating the literature review or consensus activities and was registered in the Open Science Framework (http://osf-registrations-nh4g2-v1). The consensus process followed the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and TRansparency of health Research) Network recommendations for reporting guidelines development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/equator-network-reporting-guideline-manual ) and was registered with EQUATOR as ‘Reporting guidelines under development’ ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs ). The final BePRECISE guidelines are available on the Equator website ( https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ ).

The purpose of the scoping review was to determine whether the published literature on precision medicine in cardiometabolic diseases met a minimum threshold for reporting quality. We set the minimum expectation as a condition where most (that is, ≥50%) published papers in this domain are adequately reported. To define a study as adequately or inadequately reported (as a binary variable), members of the scoping review committee identified, through consultation, 11 key items (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 ). Papers that met all 11 reporting criteria were deemed, a priori, to be adequately reported.

The checklist items used to assess the reporting quality of studies captured in the scoping review were determined before the Delphi surveys were undertaken. These scoping review checklist items correspond with some of those used in the Delphi surveys that formed the basis of the final BePRECISE checklist, because both the scoping review and Delphi surveys are, to varying degrees, derived from the findings of the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 . The scoping review was intended to provide a snapshot of the quality of reporting in a subset of literature relating to precision medicine. It was not undertaken to inform the items in the BePRECISE checklist; this purpose was served by the systematic evidence reviews 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 and the Consensus report 3 described above.

Based on the findings of the precision diabetes medicine Consensus report 3 , we hypothesized that no more than 30% of currently published studies are adequately reported. This assumption was tested by full text reviewing a statistically powered, random subsample of published papers on precision medicine across cardiometabolic diseases (ʻSearch strategyʼ and ʻSample size estimationʼ). This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review guidelines 30 to identify and assess the current literature on precision medicine in cardiometabolic diseases and was completed before the ‘guidelines consensus process’ described below.

Sample size estimation

The literature search was not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of the published evidence, but instead to provide an unbiased representation of this literature. To determine how many papers should be reviewed as a representative sample of the published literature, an a priori sample size calculation was performed using SAS software v.9.4 (SAS Institute). Given the scenario described, we used a two-sided test with a type 1 error threshold (critical α) of 0.05, assuming a null hypothesis proportion of 0.50, which corresponds to our minimum expectation, an expected number of adequately reported papers of <30% and nominal power of 80%. This calculation determined that 47 randomly selected papers should be full text reviewed to ascertain whether the assumed proportion of adequately reported studies is significantly lower than the prespecified null proportion (that is, to infer that the quality of papers reported in this field is lower than the minimum expectation).

Search strategy

We searched the PubMed database ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ) to identify relevant articles published in the past 5 years (January 2019 to January 2024). The search strategy incorporated keywords and terms ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh ) in human epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials representing: (1) precision medicine, (2) cardiometabolic diseases and (3) clinical translation (see Supplementary Methods for the detailed search strategy). The search was constrained to publications written in English. Conference abstracts, case reports, study protocols, reviews and animal studies were excluded.

Study selection and quality assessment

Covidence software ( https://www.covidence.org ; Veritas Health Innovation) was used to manage the scoping review selection process. Studies were filtered in three stages: (1) removal of duplicate publications; (2) ascertainment of study eligibility based on title and abstract by at least two independent reviewers; and (3) full text review of 47 randomly selected studies, where at least 2 independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of each publication according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each paper was further evaluated to determine whether it met the 11 predetermined quality criteria. Any conflicts were subsequently resolved by an independent reviewer.

Consensus process

The five-step consensus process was based on a modified Delphi and nominal group technique 29 . The consensus process involved: (1) completion of an initial Delphi survey (6–13 February 2024); (2) a consensus meeting (15–16 February 2024); and (3) a second Delphi survey (19–26 February 2024). Finalization of the checklist was conducted at a second consensus meeting by the executive oversight committee (5–6 March 2024), who reviewed the voting of all rounds of the Delphi survey, made final decisions about item inclusion and refined wording of the BePRECISE checklist. The executive oversight committee also evaluated the checklist against two publications on precision medicine determined through the scoping review to be of high and low quality, respectively. The final version of the checklist was circulated to all panel members for consultation and approval (13–19 March 2024).

The items in the first iteration of Delphi survey 1 were derived from existing checklists: CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 , CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension 31 and STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)—an extension of the STROBE guidelines 32 . Additional items specific to precision medicine were generated based on the reporting gaps identified from the series of systematic reviews (11 published) that underpinned the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 . The draft of Delphi survey 1 was presented to the full panel at a roundtable discussion followed by co-development with the full panel through an online document-sharing platform. The final items for Delphi survey 1, including the input sources for its development, are shown in Supplementary Table 3 .

The Delphi survey response scale had five options: ‘Completely inappropriate’, ‘Somewhat inappropriate’, ‘Neither appropriate nor inappropriate’, ‘Somewhat appropriate’ and ‘Completely appropriate’. The consensus threshold was defined a priori as at least 80% of the panel voting for ‘Completely appropriate’ or ‘Somewhat appropriate’. Items with voting scores under this consensus threshold were discussed at the Consensus meetings. The Delphi surveys were administered online and were anonymous. Panelists were invited to provide free-text comments to suggest new items (survey 1 only), suggest a change of wording for a given item or justify their voting decision. The voting scores and anonymous comments for each item from the previous consensus round were provided to panelists at the subsequent rounds, such that consensus was reached iteratively.

Delphi panel and executive oversight committee

The BePRECISE checklist panelists cover the core areas of expertise outlined in the EQUATOR Network recommendations for reporting guidelines development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/equator-network-reporting-guideline-manual ). The panel includes subject-matter experts across relevant disease areas and with expertise in the topics highlighted as gaps in the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’. Moreover, the BePRECISE panelist selection focused on ensuring diversity: (1) global representation (Europe, North America, sub-Saharan Africa and Australia); (2) career stages (23% early career researchers within 10 years of research experience, 27% of mid-career researchers of 11–15 years of experience and 50% of senior researchers of >20 years of experience); and (3) gender (55% of authors being female).

Accordingly, the Delphi panel comprised subject-matter experts in key cardiometabolic disorders (diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, renal disease), statistics, study design (epidemiologists and clinical trialists), journal editorial, lived experience, benchmarking and technology, education and translation, health equity, community engagement and clinical practice. Several of these experts are based in or have worked extensively with investigators in low- and middle-income countries (M.R., N.S., J.L.S. and P.W.F.).

The executive oversight committee for this report consisted of multidisciplinary experts in cardiometabolic disorders, equity research, medical journal editorial and lived experience (P.W.F., S.S.L., S.S.R., J.L.S., A.H.N., Z.S.A. and M.L.M.).

Chung, W. K. et al. Precision medicine in diabetes: a consensus report from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 43 , 1617–1635 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Tobias, D. K. et al. Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine. Nat. Med. 29 , 2438–2457 (2023).

GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396 , 1204–1222 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Sun, H. et al. IDF diabetes atlas: global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 183 , 109119 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Ahmad, A. et al. Precision prognostics for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 4 , 11 (2024).

Semnani-Azad, Z. et al. Precision stratification of prognostic risk factors associated with outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 4 , 9 (2024).

Francis, E. C. et al. Refining the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 3 , 185 (2023).

Misra, S. et al. Precision subclassification of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 138 (2023).

Benham, J. L. et al. Precision gestational diabetes treatment: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Commun. Med. 3 , 135 (2023).

Felton, J. L. et al. Disease-modifying therapies and features linked to treatment response in type 1 diabetes prevention: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 130 (2023).

Murphy, R. et al. The use of precision diagnostics for monogenic diabetes: a systematic review and expert opinion. Commun. Med. 3 , 136 (2023).

Lim, S. et al. Participant characteristics in the prevention of gestational diabetes as evidence for precision medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 3 , 137 (2023).

Jacobsen, L. M. et al. Utility and precision evidence of technology in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 132 (2023).

Semple, R. K., Patel, K. A., Auh, S., Ada/Easd, P. & Brown, R. J. Genotype-stratified treatment for monogenic insulin resistance: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 134 (2023).

Naylor, R. N. et al. Systematic review of treatment of beta-cell monogenic diabetes. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.12.23289807 (2023).

Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D.& the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 7 , e1000251 (2010).

Cuschieri, S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J. Anaesth. 13 , S31–S34 (2019).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 372 , n71 (2021).

O’Neill, J. et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 67 , 56–64 (2014).

Mirzayi, C. et al. Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist. Nat. Med. 27 , 1885–1892 (2021).

Hart, J. T. The inverse care law. Lancet i , 405–412 (1971).

Kamiza, A. B. et al. Transferability of genetic risk scores in African populations. Nat. Med. 28 , 1163–1166 (2022).

Choudhury, A. et al. Meta-analysis of sub-Saharan African studies provides insights into genetic architecture of lipid traits. Nat. Commun. 13 , 2578 (2022).

Aiyegbusi, O. L. et al. Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research. Nat. Med. 29 , 1922–1929 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Retzer, A. et al. A toolkit for capturing a representative and equitable sample in health research. Nat. Med. 29 , 3259–3267 (2023).

Calvert, M. et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 309 , 814–822 (2013).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Calvert, M. et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 319 , 483–494 (2018).

Rankin, N. M. et al. Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16 , 110 (2016).

Tricco, A. C. et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169 , 467–473 (2018).

Welch, V. A. et al. CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials. Br. Med. J. 359 , j5085 (2017).

Little, J. et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)—an extension of the STROBE statement. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 39 , 247–266 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

As a PPIE representative from Australia, A.H.N. was remunerated by the Cardiometabolic Health Implementation Research in Postpartum women (CHIRP) consumer group, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University according to the Monash Partners Remuneration and Reimbursement Guidelines for Consumer and Community Involvement Activity. The Covidence license was paid for in part by Lund University’s Medical Library (Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden). Z.S.-A. was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship; M.L.M. by the Italian Ministry of Health Grant ‘Ricerca Finalizzata 2019’ (no. GR-2019-12369702); A.A. by Swedish Heart–Lung Foundation (grant no. 20190470), Swedish Research Council (2018-02837), EU H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD) and HORIZON-RIA project (grant no. 101095146—PRIME-CKD); H.F. by EU H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD) and HORIZON-RIA project (grant no. 101095146—PRIME-CKD). J.M.D. is a Wellcome Trust Early Career Fellow (no. 227070/Z/23/Z) and is supported by the Medical Research Council (UK) (grant no. MR/N00633X/1) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Exeter Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. R.J.F.L. is employed at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, which is supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (nos. NNF23SA0084103 and NNF18CC0034900), and in addition by personal grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Laureate award no. NNF20OC0059313) and the Danish National Research Fund (Chair DNRF161). M.R. is a South African Research Chair on the Genomics and Bioinformatics of African Populations, funded by the Department of Science and Innovation. N.S. is Chair of the Obesity Mission for the Office of Life Science, UK Government. M.F.G. is supported by the Swedish Research Council (EXODIAB, no. 2009-1039), Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (LUDC-IRC, no. 15-0067) and EU H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD). A.H.N’.s salary is supported by funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation. S.S.R. is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (no. R01 DK122586), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (no. 2-SRA-202201260-S-B) and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (no. 2204–05134). P.W.F. is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (no. 2019-01348), the European Commission (ERC-2015-CoG-681742-NASCENT), and Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (no. LUDC-IRC, 15-0067).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Systems and Equity, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia

Siew S. Lim & Jacqueline Boyle

Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Zhila Semnani-Azad, Deirdre K. Tobias & Paul W. Franks

Unit of Metabolic Disease, University-Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy

Mario L. Morieri

Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

Monash Centre for Health Research Implementation, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Ashley H. Ng

Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Precision Healthcare University Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Ashley H. Ng & Claudia Langenberg

Diabetic Complications Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden

Abrar Ahmad, Hugo Fitipaldi & Maria F. Gomez

Board of Directors, Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

Christian Collin

Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK

John M. Dennis

Computational Medicine, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Claudia Langenberg

Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Ruth J. F. Loos & Jordi Merino

Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

Ruth J. F. Loos

Diabetes Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Melinda Morrison

Sydney Brenner Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa

Michele Ramsay

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

Arun J. Sanyal

School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Naveed Sattar

Division of Chronic Disease Research Across the Lifecourse, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute; Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Marie-France Hivert

Diabetes Unit, Endocrine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Jordi Merino

Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Genomic Mechanisms of Disease, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Deirdre K. Tobias

Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Michael I. Trenell

Center for Public Health Genomics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Stephen S. Rich

School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

Jennifer L. Sargent

Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden

Paul W. Franks

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.S.L. (co-chair), Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. (chair) formed the executive oversight committee. Z.S.-A. (lead), M.L.M., A.A., H.F., M.-F.H., M.F.G., J.M., D.K.T., M.I.T., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. formed the evidence evaluation group. S.S.L. (lead), Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.A., H.F., J.B., C.C., J.M.D., C.L., R.J.F.L., M.M., M.R., A.J.S., N.S., M.-F.H., M.F.G., J.M., D.K.T., M.I.T., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. formed the consensus review panel. A.H.N. and C.C. were the PPIE representatives. S.S.L., Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All the authors edited and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission for journal review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul W. Franks .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

M.L.M. has consulted for and/or received speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Novartis and Servier. In the past 5 years, A.H.N. has received an investigator-initiated grant from Abbott Diabetes Care and consulting honoraria from Roche Diabetes Care, Australia and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association. There are no perceived conflicts from previous involvements on this work. C.C. is a member of the Board of Directors for the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen, Denmark. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Steno Center. M.R. is a consultant on the Genentech. ‘One Roche: Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry (“REA”) Initiative’. A.J.S. received research grants (paid to the institution) from: Intercept, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Echosense, Boehringer Ingelhiem, Pfizer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hanmi, Madrigal, Galmed, Gilead, Salix and Malinckrodt; was a consultant for Intercept, Gilead, Merck, NGM Bio, Terns, Regeneron, Alnylam, Amgen, Genentech, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Salix, Malinckrodt, Lilly, Histoindex, Path AI, Rivus, Hemoshear, Northsea, 89Bio, Altimmune, Surrozen and Poxel; and had ownership interests in Tiziana, Durect, Exhalenz, GENFIT, Galmed, Northsea and Hemoshear. N.S. has consulted for and/or received speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Menarini-Ricerche, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics and Sanofi; and received grant support (paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work. M.F.G. received financial and nonfinancial (in-kind) support (paid to the institution) from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, JDRF International, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Sanofi-Aventis, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, within EU grant H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD); also received financial and in-kind support from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Follicum, Coegin Pharma, Abcentra, Probi and Johnson & Johnson, within a project funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research on precision medicine in diabetes (LUDC-IRC no. 15-0067); and received personal consultancy fees from Lilly and Tribune Therapeutics AB. M.I.T. has, within the past 5 years, received consulting/honoraria from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Abbott Nutrition, Changing Health and DAISER. This work is independent and does not represent the opinions of these organizations. S.S.R. has received consulting honoraria from Westat and investigator-initiated grants from the US National Institutes of Health, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. J.L.S. receives consulting fees from the World Health Organization and the University of Bergen. This work was done outside these roles and the opinions expressed in these guidelines do not necessarily reflect those of the World Health Organization or the University of Bergen. J.L.S. was deputy editor of Nature Medicine until December 2023. She left employment at Springer Nature before any of her work on this Consensus Statement was initiated. P.W.F. was an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation at the time that these guidelines were written, although this work was done entirely within his academic capacity. The opinions expressed in these guidelines do not necessarily reflect those of the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Within the past 5 years, he has received consulting honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Novo Nordisk, UBS and Zoe, and previously had other financial interests in Zoe. He has also received investigator-initiated grants (paid to the institution) from numerous pharmaceutical companies as part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative of the European Union. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. J.A.B. received royalties from Elsevier as an editor on a medical textbook that does not impact this work. A.J.S. has stock options in Rivus, is a consultant to Boehringer Ingelhiem and Akero, and has grants from Takeda.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Jose Florez and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Joao Monteiro, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lim, S.S., Semnani-Azad, Z., Morieri, M.L. et al. Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of clinical relevance: the BePRECISE checklist. Nat Med 30 , 1874–1881 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03033-3

Download citation

Received : 21 March 2024

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 19 July 2024

Issue Date : July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03033-3

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

How to Make a “Good” Presentation “Great”

Guy Kawasaki

Remember: Less is more.

A strong presentation is so much more than information pasted onto a series of slides with fancy backgrounds. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others. Here are some unique elements that make a presentation stand out.

Fonts: Sans Serif fonts such as Helvetica or Arial are preferred for their clean lines, which make them easy to digest at various sizes and distances. Limit the number of font styles to two: one for headings and another for body text, to avoid visual confusion or distractions.
Colors: Colors can evoke emotions and highlight critical points, but their overuse can lead to a cluttered and confusing presentation. A limited palette of two to three main colors, complemented by a simple background, can help you draw attention to key elements without overwhelming the audience.
Pictures: Pictures can communicate complex ideas quickly and memorably but choosing the right images is key. Images or pictures should be big (perhaps 20-25% of the page), bold, and have a clear purpose that complements the slide’s text.
Layout: Don’t overcrowd your slides with too much information. When in doubt, adhere to the principle of simplicity, and aim for a clean and uncluttered layout with plenty of white space around text and images. Think phrases and bullets, not sentences.

As an intern or early career professional, chances are that you’ll be tasked with making or giving a presentation in the near future. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others.

Guy Kawasaki is the chief evangelist at Canva and was the former chief evangelist at Apple. Guy is the author of 16 books including Think Remarkable : 9 Paths to Transform Your Life and Make a Difference.

Partner Center

2024 Republican National Convention: Day 1

Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-j-d-vances-past-statements-and-relationship-with-trump

Fact-checking JD Vance’s past statements and relationship with Trump

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Former President Donald Trump has selected Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate.

“After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the Great State of Ohio,” Trump wrote July 15 on Truth Social.

Vance, 39, won his Senate seat in 2022 with Trump’s backing. He would be one of the youngest vice presidents in U.S. history.

But before becoming one of Trump’s fiercest allies and defenders, Vance sharply criticized the former president. During the 2016 presidential election, Vance wrote that he goes “back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a–hole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler.”

WATCH: 2024 RNC delegates react to Trump shooting

He has since sounded a different tone including in defending Trump’s actions in the events leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Vance was critical of Vice President Mike Pence’s handling of the 2020 election results certification and in an interview with Kaitlan Collins on CNN questioned whether the vice president’s life was actually endangered during the riots. Vance also vocally condemned what he sees as the tenor of political rhetoric, which he tied to an assassination attempt during Trump’s July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Vance posted on X shortly after the shooting. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

Who is J.D. Vance and what is his relationship with Trump?

Before winning his Senate seat in 2022, Vance worked as an investor, commentator and bestselling author.

Vance, who was born in Middleton, Ohio, served in the U.S. Marine Corps before attending Ohio State University and Yale Law School. He worked as a corporate lawyer before moving into the tech industry as a venture capitalist.

WATCH: JD Vance’s evolution from Trump critic to running mate

Vance rose to fame through his 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” which describes his growing up in poverty and details the isolation, violence and drug addiction that often surrounds poor white communities in middle America.

When the book was released, Vance started talking to the media about issues important to people in his community — and started criticizing Trump.

Vance told ABC News in August 2016 that, although Trump successfully “diagnoses the problems” people are facing, he didn’t see Trump “offering many solutions.” In an October 2016 interview with journalist Charlie Rose, Vance said he was a “never-Trump guy.”

In another 2016 interview about his book, Vance told a reporter that, although his background would have made him a natural Trump supporter, “the reason, ultimately, that I am not … is because I think that (Trump) is the most-raw expression of a massive finger pointed at other people.”

Vance began to publicly change course when he launched his Senate campaign in 2021. He deleted tweets from 2016 that included him calling Trump “reprehensible” and an “idiot.” In another deleted tweet following the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on which Trump said fame enabled him to grope women, Vance wrote: “Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us.”

He apologized about his Trump criticisms in a July 2021 Fox News interview, and asked people not to judge him based on what he had said. “I’ve been very open that I did say those critical things and I regret them, and I regret being wrong about the guy,” Vance said. “I think he was a good president, I think he made a lot of good decisions for people, and I think he took a lot of flak.”

In June, after news circulated that Vance was on Trump’s short list for vice president, Fox News host Bret Baier asked Vance about the comments. Vance said he was wrong about Trump. “He was a great president, and it’s one of the reasons why I’m working so hard to make sure he gets a second term,” he said.

Trump endorsed Vance in the Ohio GOP Senate primary, helping him win the race and the general election.

As a senator, Vance lobbied to defeat Ohio’s constitutional amendment that ensured access to abortion, calling it a “gut punch” after the measure passed.

After the hazardous East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment in 2023, which ignited a fire and led to evacuations and a controlled release of chemicals, Vance worked with Ohio’s senior senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, to introduce rail safety legislation.

PolitiFact has fact-checked Vance 10 times. He’s received two Pants on Fire ratings, three Falses, two Mostly Falses and two Half Trues. He also received one Mostly True rating before he was a politician in 2018.

In March, Vance echoed a popular Republican talking point, saying that “100% of net job creation under the Biden administration has gone to the foreign-born.” We rated that Mostly False. Since Biden took office in early 2021, the number of foreign-born Americans who are employed has risen by about 5.6 million. But over the same time period, the number of native-born Americans employed has increased by almost 7.4 million. We rated False Vance’s claim in February that the $95 million Ukraine supplemental aid package included a “hidden impeachment clause against President Trump.” The measure doesn’t mention impeachment.

Because it’s the president’s job to spend congressionally appropriated funds, experts said whoever is elected president next will be responsible for spending the money allocated in the law. It doesn’t target former Trump; it would apply the same way to Biden, should he be reelected.

On immigration, Vance falsely claimed in 2022 that Biden’s “open border” meant that “more Democrat voters were “pouring into this country.” Immigrants who cross the border illegally cannot vote in federal elections. The process for immigrants to become citizens and therefore gain the right to vote can take a decade or longer.

PolitiFact also addressed controversial comments Vance made in 2021, surfaced during his Senate run, about rape being “inconvenient.”

Vance didn’t directly say “rape is inconvenient.” But when he was asked in an interview whether laws should allow people to get abortions if they were victims of rape or incest, he said that society shouldn’t view a pregnancy or birth resulting from rape or incest as “inconvenient.”

In the interview, which occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Vance was also asked whether anti-abortion laws should include rape and incest exceptions. “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said in response. “At the end of day, we are talking about an unborn baby. What kind of society do we want to have? A society that looks at unborn babies as inconveniences to be discarded?”

When asked again about the exceptions, Vance said: “The question portrays a certain presumption that is wrong. It’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term, it’s whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society.”

Since being on Trump’s vice presidential short list, Vance has expressed a more moderate view on abortion.

On July 7 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” for example, Vance said he supports access to the abortion pill mifepristone after the Supreme Court dismissed the case against it — echoing what Trump said days before during the presidential debate.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.

A number of factors contribute to how well people adapt to adversities, including the ways in which individuals view and engage with the world, the availability and quality of social resources, and specific coping strategies.

Psychological research demonstrates that the resources and skills associated with resilience can be cultivated and practiced.

Adapted from the APA Dictionary of Psychology

Resources from APA

Building your resilience

Resilience for teens: 10 tips to build skills on bouncing back from rough times

Resilience guide for parents and teachers

The Pain Survival Guide, Rev. Ed.

Motivation Myth Busters

Nature Meets Nurture

Building Psychological Resilience in Military Personnel

Magination Press children’s books

Abracadabra!

New Kid, New Scene

Bounce Back

Out of the Fires

What to Do When Mistakes Make You Quake, Revised

Journal special issues

Collaborative and Participatory Research to Promote Engagement, Empowerment, and Resilience for Immigrant and Refugee Youth, Families, and Communities

Somos Latinxs

Risk and Resilience in Sexual and Gender Minority Relationships

Trauma, Aging, and Well-Being

Psychological Perspectives on Culture Change

What is mortgage discrimination?

Types of mortgage discrimination, how to recognize mortgage discrimination, how to report mortgage discrimination, how to spot discrimination in mortgage lending, and what you can do about it.

Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate mortgages to write unbiased product reviews.

Mortgage discrimination is often subtle and difficult to spot.
An applicant being offered less favorable mortgage terms due to their race is an example of mortgage discrimination.
Shopping around with multiple lenders and comparing offers can make it easier to see if you've been discriminated against.

Homeownership is an important part of wealth-building for many Americans, which is what makes discrimination during the homebuying and mortgage application processes so harmful.

Mortgage discrimination is a type of housing discrimination , and it can often be hard to spot. To protect yourself, it's important to know what constitutes mortgage discrimination, what it typically looks like, and what you can do if you think you've experienced discrimination.

If a lender is making decisions about its mortgage approvals or policies based on certain protected characteristics, that's considered mortgage discrimination.

Mortgage discrimination is prohibited by both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).

According to the Fair Housing Act, discrimination based on the following characteristics is prohibited:

Race or color
Sex (including gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual harassment)
Familial status
National origin

The ECOA prohibits also discrimination based on:

Sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation)
Marital status
Age (provided the applicant has the capacity to enter a contract)
Applicant's receipt of income from a public assistance program
Applicant's exercise, in good faith, of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Mortgage discrimination doesn't just happen when someone is explicitly denied a loan because they're a member of a specific group — it's often more subtle.

Discriminatory policies can fall into one of two categories: disparate impact, or disparate treatment.

With disparate impact, a lender may have the same policies for all borrowers, but they impact certain borrowers differently than others. An example of this would be if a lender looks at gross income for all its applicants, but doesn't treat taxable income differently than non-taxable income.

This could disproportionately impact those who receive non-taxable income, such as disabled individuals or the elderly, and lead them to qualify for less than what they actually can afford. As long as you meet credit and debt requirements, you can get a mortgage with Social Security income — and if you aren't required to pay taxes on that income, lenders typically need to look at it differently than other types of income. Not doing so can have a disparate impact on borrowers that could be considered discriminatory.

With disparate treatment, borrowers are treated differently based on protected characteristics.

This can be overt, such as a lender stating that they don't make loans to certain groups or offering different terms for applicants based on protected classes. It can also be more subtle, and only recognizable when comparing similar applicants who have different outcomes.

An example of this would be if two applicants had negative information on their credit reports, but the lender decides to work with one applicant, who is white, while denying the other, who isn't white.

Spotting mortgage discrimination can be difficult, because it often becomes obvious only when comparing similar applications that had different outcomes.

Fair housing groups like the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC), a nonprofit organization in New York that works to eliminate housing discrimination, send testers to lenders suspected of engaging in mortgage discrimination. These testers pose as potential loan applicants and gather data on how the lender treats different types of applicants.

Fred Freiberg, FHJC's national field consultant, says that in these tests they've seen white applicants with less qualified applications receive quotes for larger loan amounts than minority testers who had stronger applications. White testers often received more assistance from lenders as well.

"Often white testers were coached into ways in which they could improve their financial situation and break into a higher price range and home price," Freiberg says. "And that coaching didn't often occur with the testers they were matched with."

When you're offered a mortgage by a lender, it's difficult to know if the lender is offering you worse terms based on protected characteristics. This is why testing done by groups like FHJC is so important.

"Most people would not know that they were discriminated against," Freiberg says.

While individuals can't conduct these kinds of tests on their own, you can do some of your own comparisons by getting preapproved with a few different lenders.

When you shop around with multiple mortgage lenders , you can see if any of the terms you were offered by one lender seem unusual compared to the other preapprovals you received.

"But in most cases folks aren't doing that, they're going and meeting with one person," says Shaye Belcon, FHJC's national projects and investigations coordinator. "So they don't really have a good idea necessarily about whether they were discriminated against."

It's also a good idea to have a basic understanding of what lenders look for when approving an applicant for a mortgage. If you're getting a conventional loan , you'll typically need a credit score of at least 620, a debt-to-income ratio (DTI) below 50%, and a down payment of at least 3%.

If you've been denied a mortgage and aren't sure why, you have a right to ask. Acceptable reasons for denying a mortgage application include a too-high DTI or negative information in your credit report.

If you have a feeling you might have been discriminated against, you can reach out to a local fair housing organization to get assistance. They can help you file a complaint with the right government agencies, and may be able to assist you if you decide to take legal action. They can also send testers to the lender to try to gather evidence of discriminatory practices.

"The burden of enforcing the fair housing and fair lending laws should not fall exclusively on the victims of discrimination," Freiberg says. "We all have a responsibility to clean up this problem."

If you want to report housing discrimination, you can file a complaint with HUD or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . Most states also have a department where you can file fair housing complaints.


Alabama	*
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Washington, DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois	Illinois Department of Human Rights
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi	*
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada	*
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

*Does not have state-associated fair housing assistance

Mortgage discrimination FAQs

Mortgage discrimination is often subtle and hard to spot. An example of mortgage discrimination is if a lender offers applicants with similar credit profiles different terms based on their race.

Both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination in mortgage lending.

No, mortgage lenders can't discriminate based on age. They may, however, use your age as part of determining other aspects of your creditworthiness — for example, they may look at how long you have before retirement when considering your income. They can also refuse to lend to someone who isn't old enough to legally enter into a contract.

Mortgages and mortgage lenders
Home equity
The housing market
The economy and the forces that impact mortgage rates
Budgeting and saving
Retirement savings

Main content

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Amid Doubts About Biden’s Mental Sharpness, Trump Leads Presidential Race

2. biden’s and trump’s personal qualities and handling of issues, table of contents.

Broad dissatisfaction with the 2024 campaign
Other findings: Voter engagement, candidates and issues, Trump’s conduct, Biden’s personal traits over time, job approval
Larger share of Trump’s voters say they strongly support him
Moderate supporters of Biden and Trump are less likely than strong supporters to be certain of their choices
Where do Kennedy’s supporters go in a two-way race?
Personal traits of Biden and Trump
Confidence in Biden and Trump on issues facing the nation
Many voters would swap out the candidates if they could
Voters’ emotions if Biden or Trump won
Demographic differences in views of the stakes in the 2024 election
How motivated are voters at this point in the campaign?
How voter attention compares to past elections
Views of Biden’s job performance among key demographic groups
Views of the political parties
Acknowledgments
The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overall, 43% of voters say they agree with Donald Trump on many or all issues, while somewhat fewer (37%) say they agree with Biden on many or all issues.

Chart shows Voters give Trump an edge on issues, Biden an edge on personal conduct

But voters are more likely to like Joe Biden’s personal conduct than Trump’s:

26% say they like the way Biden conducts himself, while 30% have mixed feelings and 43% do not like his conduct.
Just 14% like Trump’s conduct, while 30% say they have mixed feelings and a 56% majority say they don’t like his conduct.

Voters on their candidate’s issues and personal conduct

Most Biden and Trump supporters generally agree with their candidate on issues, but Trump supporters are particularly likely to say this.

By contrast, a majority of Biden supporters like Biden’s personal conduct, but Trump supporters are more divided in their evaluations of Trump’s personal behavior.

Nearly nine-in-ten Trump supporters (88%) say they agree with him on many or all issues, including 41% who say they agree with him on all or nearly all issues.

Chart shows Trump’s backers are more likely than Biden’s to say they agree with their candidate on issues; Biden’s are more likely to like their candidate’s conduct

Eight-in-ten Biden supporters say they agree with him on many or all issues, though just 25% say they agree with him on all or nearly all issues.

While relatively small shares of either candidate’s supporters say they agree with their candidate on only a few or no issues, Biden’s supporters are slightly more likely to say this than Trump’s (19% vs. 12%, respectively).

About six-in-ten Biden supporters (59%) like the way Biden conducts himself, with 36% saying they have mixed feelings. Just 5% say they don’t like the way he conducts himself.

Trump supporters are far less likely to say they like the way Trump conducts himself (30%), instead holding more mixed (55%) or negative (15%) views about his conduct.

Chart shows Most voters say Biden and Trump are ‘embarrassing’; Biden viewed as more honest, Trump more ‘mentally sharp’

Voters overall give mixed assessments of Biden and Trump on some key personal traits.

Positive traits

Nearly half of voters (48%) see Biden as either very or fairly honest, 12 percentage points higher than the share of voters who describe Trump this way (36%).

Voters are also slightly more likely to view Biden as caring about the needs of ordinary people (49% vs. 44% who say this of Trump).

But Trump is seen by far more voters as “mentally sharp” than Biden is (58% vs. 24%) – a 34-point difference.

Negative traits

Identical majorities of voters (63%) describe both Biden and Trump as “embarrassing.”

Voters are considerably more likely to view Trump as “mean-spirited” than Biden: 64% of voters say this describes Trump very or fairly well, while about half as many (31%) say this about Biden.

How supporters view their own candidate’s personal traits

Biden and Trump supporters both generally attribute positive traits to their candidate, with smaller shares describing them in negative terms.

About nine-in-ten Trump and Biden voters say “cares about the needs of ordinary people” describes their candidate at least fairly well.
Majorities of Biden and Trump voters also view their candidates as honest. But Biden supporters are substantially more likely to view Biden as honest (92%) than Trump supporters are to say this about Trump (77%).
While an overwhelming majority of Trump supporters (96%) view Trump as mentally sharp, a far smaller share (53%) of Biden supporters say this describes Biden very or fairly well.
39% of Trump supporters say “mean-spirited” describes Trump. Just 8% of Biden supporters say Biden is mean-spirited.
At least a third of both Biden’s (37%) and Trump’s (33%) own backers characterize them as embarrassing.

Chart shows Voters generally view the candidate they support in positive terms, but a third or more of both candidate’s supporters say ‘embarrassing’ describes their candidate

Biden and Trump’s personal traits today vs. four years ago

When Biden and Trump faced each other four years ago, voters were also more likely to view Biden as honest than to say this about Trump. Biden’s current advantage on this trait is on par with his advantage in 2020.

Mental sharpness

Today, just 24% of voters say “mentally sharp” describes Biden very or fairly well, while 58% say this trait applies to Trump. In October of 2020, voters were slightly more likely to apply this description to Trump than Biden (50% vs. 46%). But the gap is now 34 percentage points. The share of voters viewing Biden as mentally sharp has declined steadily since early 2021. More voters (58%) view Trump as mentally sharp today than did so in October 2020 (50%).

The drop in the share of voters viewing Biden as mentally sharp has come mostly among his own supporters. While 82% viewed Biden as mentally sharp in October 2020, 53% do now. Among Trump supporters, just 2% describe Biden as mentally sharp, with 89% saying this does not describe him well at all.

Concern for ordinary people

Biden continues to be seen by more voters than Trump as someone who “cares about the needs of ordinary people.” But the 13-point edge Biden enjoyed on this trait in June 2020 is narrower today (5 points).

Chart shows Far fewer voters see Biden as mentally sharp than in 2020, while the share saying this about Trump has increased; Biden continues to hold edge on honesty

Neither major party candidate wins much confidence from voters on some of the key issues facing the nation. No more than about half of voters express confidence in either candidate on any of the six issue areas asked about in this survey. And in several cases, substantially smaller shares express confidence.

Chart shows Voters have greater confidence in Trump on immigration, the economy, foreign policy; Biden has slight edge on abortion policy

Still, more voters express confidence in Trump than in Biden on immigration, the economy and foreign policy, while Biden has an advantage on abortion policy and on his ability to work with the opposing party. Nearly identical shares have confidence in Biden and Trump on Supreme Court nominations.

Greater confidence in Biden

Four-in-ten voters express confidence in Biden to work well with elected officials in the other party. About a third (32%) have confidence in Trump to do this.

And a slightly larger share of voters have confidence in Biden to make good decisions about abortion policy than say this about Trump (48% vs. 44%).

Greater confidence in Trump

Voters express greater confidence in Trump’s ability to make good decisions about immigration policy, economic policy and foreign policy.

About half or more of voters say they are very or somewhat confident in Trump’s ability to handle each of these policy areas, compared with four-in-ten or fewer who say this of Biden.

No clear advantage

Voters are about equally confident in Trump’s and Biden’s ability to select good nominees for the Supreme Court (47% say they are very or confident in each).

Supporters’ confidence in their own candidates

While voters are generally confident in their candidate’s ability to make good policy decisions, Trump’s voters express higher levels of confidence than Biden’s voters on most measures.

For instance, more than nine-in-ten Trump supporters are very or somewhat confident that Trump can make good decisions in relation to foreign, economic and immigration policy, including at least six-in-ten who say they are very confident.

Large majorities of Biden supporters express confidence in Biden on these measures, but fewer than half are very confident in his ability to handle immigration, as well as foreign and economic policies. Sizeable majorities of Trump supporters are very confident in his handling of these same issues.

Chart shows Trump supporters are more likely than Biden supporters to be very confident in their candidate’s handling of immigration, the economy and foreign policy; more Biden than Trump supporters are highly confident in their candidate on abortion policy

However, a larger share of Biden supporters (55%) than Trump supporters (42%) are confident in their candidate to make good decisions about abortion policy.

Voter confidence in candidates on issues: 2020 vs. 2024

Chart shows Confidence in Biden on economy, foreign policy, Supreme Court is down from 2020 election

Voters’ confidence in Trump on the economy, foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments is nearly identical to voters’ assessments in the 2020 election.

By comparison, confidence in Biden in each of these domains is lower than it was in the 2020 election.

Half of voters expressed confidence in Biden’s ability to make good foreign policy decisions in June 2020, as did about half (48%) in his ability to make good decisions about economic policy.

Today, about four-in-ten express confidence in Biden in each of these areas.

By comparison, confidence that Trump could make good foreign policy decisions is modestly higher (from 44% to 49%), while confidence that he can make good economic decisions is about the same as it was four years ago.

Voters’ confidence in Biden’s ability to select good nominees for the Supreme Court is also lower than it was in 2020 (55% then, 47% now), as confidence in Trump’s ability to do so has changed little (49% then, 47% now).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Donald Trump
Election 2024
Political & Civic Engagement

How Latino voters view the 2024 presidential election

10 facts about republicans in the u.s., third-party and independent candidates for president often fall short of early polling numbers, americans’ views of government’s role: persistent divisions and areas of agreement, 6 facts about presidential and vice presidential debates, most popular, report materials.

Questionnaire
July 2024 Presidential Preference Detailed Tables

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Morning Rundown: What’s next for Democrats with Biden out, a spike in one of AI's darkest uses, and the epic kick that could win Team USA a taekwondo gold

Rooftop where gunman shot at Trump was identified as a security vulnerability before rally: sources

The rooftop where a gunman shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally was identified by the Secret Service as a potential vulnerability in the days before the event, two sources familiar with the agency’s operations told NBC News.

The building, owned by a glass research company, is adjacent to the Butler Farm Show, an outdoor venue in Butler, Pennsylvania. The Secret Service was aware of the risks associated with it, the sources said.

“Someone should have been on the roof or securing the building so no one could get on the roof,” said one of the sources, a former senior Secret Service agent who was familiar with the planning.

Understanding how the gunman got onto the roof — despite those concerns — is a central question for investigators scrutinizing how a lone attacker managed to shoot at Trump during Saturday’s campaign event.

The Secret Service worked with local law enforcement to maintain event security, including sniper teams poised on rooftops to identify and eliminate threats, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. But no officers were posted on the building used by the would-be assassin, outside the event’s security perimeter but only about 148 yards from the stage — within range of a semiautomatic rifle like the one the gunman was carrying.

The Secret Service had designated that rooftop as being under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement, a common practice in securing outdoor rallies, Guglielmi said.Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said his office maintains an Emergency Services Unit team, which deployed four sniper teams and four “quick response teams” at the rally. But he said the Secret Service agents were in charge of security outside the venue.

“They had meetings in the week prior. The Secret Service ran the show. They were the ones who designated who did what,” Goldinger said. “In the command hierarchy, they were top, they were No. 1.”

Goldinger said the commander of the Emergency Services Unit told him it was not responsible for securing areas outside the venue. “To me, the whole thing is under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service. And they will delineate from there,” he said.

The former senior Secret Service agent also said that even if local law enforcement “did drop the ball,” it’s still the agency’s responsibility “to ensure that they are following through either beforehand or in the moment.”

“Just because it is outside of the perimeter, it doesn’t take it out of play for a vulnerability, and you’ve got to mitigate it in some fashion,” the source added.

A volley of shots rang out minutes into Trump’s speech. He reached for his right ear — he said later it was pierced by a bullet — then dropped to the ground as Secret Service agents rushed to shield him. Trump emerged with blood on his ear and his face. One attendee was killed , and two others were injured.Witnesses listening to Trump’s speech from outside the event’s security perimeter recalled pointing out the gunman to law enforcement a couple of minutes before the shooting began. After the gunfire started, Secret Service personnel shot and killed the 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks .

The clamor over the Secret Service’s biggest failure since the shooting of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 is coming from both political parties, from former agents and from security experts.

“My question is: How did he get onto that roof undetected?” said Anthony Cangelosi, a former Secret Service agent who worked on protective details for presidential candidates, including John Kerry in 2004.

The Secret Service’s work on campaign events like Saturday’s begins with advance planning, setting up a security perimeter and positioning teams on the ground and on rooftops — often in partnership with local law enforcement. The ground deployments include a counterassault team, and the rooftop personnel include counter-sniper teams.

Guglielmi, the Secret Service spokesman, said the agency had two of its counterassault agents at the event and filled out the rest of the platoon with at least six officers from Butler County tactical units. The Secret Service also deployed two counter-sniper teams. Two other security units needed for the event were staffed by local law enforcement agencies, Guglielmi said. Those details were first reported by The Washington Post.Investigators will want to examine the Secret Service’s site security plan for the rally, said Cangelosi, the former Secret Service agent. He expects they’ll discover one of two things: Either officials failed to make an effective plan for keeping potential shooters off the building Crooks fired from, or officers on the ground failed to execute the plan.

“I don’t like making any assumptions, but it does look like some mistakes were made, that this was preventable,” said Cangelosi, now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Although it’s common to task local law enforcement agencies with patrolling outside an event’s security perimeter, Cangelosi said, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all vulnerabilities are covered rests with the Secret Service.

If officials had placed an officer on the building where the gunman fired from, Cangelosi said, chances are he “wouldn’t even attempt what he attempted.”

“You don’t surrender the discretion of what’s supposed to be done to the local police,” he said. “In other words, you guys have the outer perimeter, but you would want to say, ‘We need an officer on that roof.’ Not ‘that’s your responsibility; do what you see fit.’”

Jim Cavanaugh, a retired special agent in charge with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who has worked on Secret Service details, told NBC News that while the Secret Service did a good job taking out the gunman after shots began, the failure to post officers on the building he scaled was “a tremendous lapse.”

“The only way to stop that is you have a lot of people, you get there first, and you command the high ground,” Cavanaugh said. “This is basic, and the Secret Service has done it for years successfully, so I’m really surprised that they did not have that high ground covered.”

The questions extended to Congress, where members demanded answers from the Secret Service and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.“This raises serious concerns regarding how a shooter was able to access a rooftop within range and direct line of sight of where President Trump was speaking,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Green asked Mayorkas to provide documentation relating to the event’s security plan, the screening of attendees and the level of resources provided to Trump’s Secret Service detail. A committee spokesperson told NBC News that Republican members would hold a briefing with Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle on Monday “to voice their concerns and ask pressing questions.”

Another lawmaker, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote Cheatle asking who approved the security plan, whether a proper threat assessment was conducted, whether attendees raised alarms and whether there were failures in following protocols that allowed the attack to happen.

“I call on all those responsible for the planning, approving, and executing of this failed security plan to be held accountable and to testify before Congress immediately,” Gallego wrote in a letter to Cheatle .

Robert McDonald, a former Secret Service agent who ran protection for Joe Biden when he was vice president, told NBC News that he believes the assassination attempt will prompt soul-searching and procedural changes at the agency.

“The Secret Service is going to need to ask some hard questions of itself here and be prepared to stand up and represent why, what happened,” McDonald said.

Cangelosi, the former Secret Service agent, said investigators are also likely to ask when agents identified Crooks as a potential threat, how they reacted and whether it’s possible they could have taken him down before he fired at Trump.Secret Service snipers are trained to make rapid decisions, he said. But it’s possible that if they noticed Crooks on the roof but couldn’t tell whether he had a rifle, agents might have waited to fire on him.

“If the sniper can’t tell whether he has a gun, he or she is not going to take the shot,” Cangelosi said. “Because God forbid it’s a child who’s just excited to see a political candidate, right? So you want to make sure that there’s actually a threat.”

If there was uncertainty, Cangelosi said, it’s possible the sniper team would have dispatched officers to investigate and confirm. But investigating a potential threat can take minutes, he said, while a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle can fire several shots in a matter of seconds.

That’s why, Cangelosi said, the best defense would have been to plan ahead to keep the shooter off the roof in the first place.

“Who wants to be in that position?” he said of the snipers protecting Trump on Saturday. “You’ve got to make a split-second call. And imagine if you’re wrong.”

Sarah Fitzpatrick is a senior investigative producer and story editor for NBC News. She previously worked for CBS News and "60 Minutes."

Julia Ainsley is the homeland security correspondent for NBC News and covers the Department of Homeland Security for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Mike Hixenbaugh is a senior investigative reporter for NBC News, based in Maryland, and author of "They Came for the Schools."

Andrea Mitchell is chief Washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News.

Jon Schuppe is an enterprise reporter for NBC News, based in New York.

IMAGES

Characteristics of a Good Report
RES 5 Characteristics of Good Research / lecture and notes
Research Report Meaning, Characteristics and Types
Qualities of good report
Understanding The Characteristics Of A Good Report
Report Writing! General Characteristics of Good Report! Learn How to Write a Good Report!

VIDEO

QUALITIES OF A GOOD RESEARCH REPORT
Metho 4: Good Research Qualities / Research Process / Research Methods Vs Research Methodology
যে ৫ টি গুন আপনাকে সম্মানিত করবে, 5 qualities will make you respectable #motivation
Characteristics of a good report
6 Qualities every good lawyer should have I My personal experience I legal life
Characteristics of a Good Research and Quality of a Good Researcher

COMMENTS

What Is Research Report? Definition, Contents, Significance, Qualities
Conclusions must clearly explain whether the hypothesis have been established and rejected. This part requires great expertise and preciseness. ... Following are the essential qualities of good report: A research report is essentially a scientific documentation. It should have a suggestive title, headings and sub-headings, paragraphs arranged ...
Top 10 Qualities of Good Academic Research in 2024
Qualities of Good Research 1. Good research is anchored on a sound research question. A sound research question is one of the most important characteristics of good research. In fact, formulating one is embedded in the curricula of research-heavy programs like engineering and physics degrees and careers.In 2010, Farrugia et al. proposed that developing a research question is the most important ...
PDF How to Write an Effective Research REport
Abstract. This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of ...
What Are the Main Qualities of a Good Report?
Cross-verification of data and thorough fact-checking are imperative. 5. Objectivity. A good report maintains objectivity, presenting information without bias. Avoiding personal opinions and subjective language ensures that the report is perceived as credible and reliable. Objectivity fosters trust among the readers.
Research Report Meaning, Characteristics and Types
The following paragraphs outline the characteristics of a good research report. 1) Accuracy. Report information must be accurate and based on facts, credible sources and data to establish reliability and trustworthiness. It should not be biased by the personal feelings of the writer. The information presented must be as precise as possible.
Research Report: Definition, Types + [Writing Guide]
A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.
Research Report
Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master's or Doctoral degree, although it can also ...
A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
What is quality research? A guide to identifying the key features and
Importance of quality research. Quality research helps us better understand complex problems. It enables us to make decisions based on facts and evidence. And it empowers us to solve real-world issues. Without quality research, we can't advance knowledge or identify trends and patterns.
What is good Research and what makes a good research
Answer: Good quality research is one that provides robust and ethical evidence. A good research must revolve around a novel question and must be based on a feasible study plan. It must make a significant contribution to scientific development by addressing an unanswered question or by solving a problem or difficulty that existed in the real world.
Top 11 Characteristics of a Good Report
For that the report has to be written in correct form and following correct steps. Characteristic # 3. Brevity: A report shall not be unnecessarily long so that the patience of the reader is not lost and there is no confusion of ideas. But, at the same time, a report must be complete. A report is not an essay.
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then ...
(PDF) Characteristics of Good Research
Characteristics of Good Research. 1. The purpose of the research should be clearly defined (aims and. objectives). 2. The need and significance of the topic of research must be stated. 3. Research ...
Writing Strong Research Questions
A good research question is essential to guide your research paper, dissertation, or thesis. All research questions should be: Focused on a single problem or issue. Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources. Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints. Specific enough to answer thoroughly.
(PDF) The Criteria of a Good Research
this research is to mention the criteria that may assist us to write a. good research. 1- The purpose of research or the problem involved should be. clearly defined and sharply limited in terms as ...
Chapter 6: Components of a Research Report
What are the implications of the findings? The research report contains four main areas: Introduction - What is the issue? What is known? What is not known? What are you trying to find out? This sections ends with the purpose and specific aims of the study. Methods - The recipe for the study. If someone wanted to perform the same study ...
What is a Research Problem? Characteristics, Types, and Examples
Characteristics, Types, and Examples. August 22, 2023 Sunaina Singh. Knowing the basics of defining a research problem is instrumental in formulating a research inquiry. A research problem is a gap in existing knowledge, a contradiction in an established theory, or a real-world challenge that a researcher aims to address in their research.
1. How to develop and report good research questions
How to develop and report good research questions. Developing a good research question. Draft a one-sentence research question and 1/2 page describing the significance of your research question. Reporting the research question in your paper. Use references/literature review effectively and sparingly. 1.
Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher
A good researcher keeps exploring the world and keeps searching for answers. 2. Analytical ability and foresight. They look for connections. Information is useless without interpretation. What drives research forward is finding meaning in our observations and data. Good researchers evaluate data from every angle and search for patterns.
9.2: Characteristics of a good research question
Whatever the case, the target population should be chosen while keeping in mind social work's responsibility to work on behalf of marginalized and oppressed groups. In sum, a good research question generally has the following features: It is written in the form of a question. It is clearly written. It cannot be answered with "yes" or ...
What are the Qualities of a Good Research Paper?
A good research paper should be rigorous, controlled, Accurate, replicable, Clear, Concise, Valid, Verifiable, Sequential, etc. Cite. 2 Recommendations. Chinaza Godswill Awuchi. University of ...
Top 10 Qualities and Characteristics of a Good Researcher
Good researchers can explain their research to both specialists and non-specialists to ensure their work is understood and appreciated by a wider audience. Attention to detail: One of the key qualities of a good researcher is being meticulous in your work. Researchers need to pay attention to every detail, from the design of an experiment to ...
What are the characteristics of a good research question?
4400 University Drive, MSN 2FL, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of ...
The report, founded on 16 systematic evidence reviews summarizing research described in >100,000 published papers, found a low degree of standardization across the published literature, with a ...
How to Make a "Good" Presentation "Great"
Summary. A strong presentation is so much more than information pasted onto a series of slides with fancy backgrounds. Whether you're pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing ...
Fact-checking JD Vance's past statements and relationship with Trump
Vance, 39, won his Senate seat in 2022 with Trump's backing. He would be one of the youngest vice presidents in U.S. history.
Resilience
Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.
Mortgage Lending Discrimination: Definition, How to Report It
Mortgage discrimination is often subtle and difficult to spot. An applicant being offered less favorable mortgage terms due to their race is an example of mortgage discrimination.
2. Biden's and Trump's personal qualities and handling of issues
And a slightly larger share of voters have confidence in Biden to make good decisions about abortion policy than say this about Trump (48% vs. 44%). Greater confidence in Trump. Voters express greater confidence in Trump's ability to make good decisions about immigration policy, economic policy and foreign policy.
Secret Service identified rooftop security risk before Trump rally shooting
The rooftop where a gunman shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally was identified by the Secret Service as a potential vulnerability in the days before the event, two sources ...

What is Research Report?

Research Report Definition

Contents of Research Report

Preliminary Part

Introduction of the Report

Review of Literature

The Research Methodology

Concluding Remarks

Bibliography

Significance of Report Writing

Qualities of Good Report

Steps in Writing Research Report

Analysis of the subject matter

Precautions for Writing Research Reports

Types of Research Report

Classification on the Basis of Information

Technical Report

Popular Report

Written Report

Oral Report

Data Collection in Research

Hypothesis Testing

You Might Also Like

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

Digital Marketing

Personal Growth

Development

What Are the Main Qualities of a Good Report?

1. Clarity and Conciseness

2. Relevance and Purpose

3. Organization and Structure

4. Accuracy and Precision

5. Objectivity

6. Completeness

7. Visual Appeal and Accessibility

8. Concise and Relevant Recommendations

Share this:

Research Report Meaning, Characteristics and Types

What is Research Report?

1) Accuracy

2) Simplicity

3) Clarity and Completeness

5) Appearance

6) Comprehensibility and Readability

7) Reliability

9) Timelines

10) Logical Content

i) Clarity in Information

ii) Optimal Length

iii) Objective and Simple Language

iv) Clear Thinking and Logical Organization

v) Engaging Style

vi) Accuracy

vii) Clarity in Presentation

viii) Coherence

ix) Readability

x) Best Composition Practices

xi) Inferences and Conclusions

xii) Proper References

xiii) Attractive Appearance

xiv) Error-Free

1) Technical Report

2) Manuscripts for Journal Articles

3) Thesis and Dissertations

4) Other Types of Research Report

i) Popular Report

ii) Interim Report

iii) Summary Report

iv) Research Abstract

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Designing the Final Outline of the Research Report

Preparation of the Rough Draft

Finalization of the Research Report

You May Also Like:

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

What is a Research Report?

Features of a Research Report

Types of Research Report

Nature of Research

Target Audience