methodology paper criteria

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE:   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE: If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE:   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 10:02 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | September 2021 (Updated April 2023)

So, you’ve pinned down your research topic and undertaken a review of the literature – now it’s time to write up the methodology section of your dissertation, thesis or research paper . But what exactly is the methodology chapter all about – and how do you go about writing one? In this post, we’ll unpack the topic, step by step .

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

• The purpose  of the methodology chapter
• Why you need to craft this chapter (really) well
• How to write and structure the chapter
• Methodology chapter example
• Essential takeaways

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

The methodology chapter is where you outline the philosophical underpinnings of your research and outline the specific methodological choices you’ve made. The point of the methodology chapter is to tell the reader exactly how you designed your study and, just as importantly, why you did it this way.

Importantly, this chapter should comprehensively describe and justify all the methodological choices you made in your study. For example, the approach you took to your research (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed), who  you collected data from (i.e., your sampling strategy), how you collected your data and, of course, how you analysed it. If that sounds a little intimidating, don’t worry – we’ll explain all these methodological choices in this post .

Why is the methodology chapter important?

The methodology chapter plays two important roles in your dissertation or thesis:

Firstly, it demonstrates your understanding of research theory, which is what earns you marks. A flawed research design or methodology would mean flawed results. So, this chapter is vital as it allows you to show the marker that you know what you’re doing and that your results are credible .

Secondly, the methodology chapter is what helps to make your study replicable. In other words, it allows other researchers to undertake your study using the same methodological approach, and compare their findings to yours. This is very important within academic research, as each study builds on previous studies.

The methodology chapter is also important in that it allows you to identify and discuss any methodological issues or problems you encountered (i.e., research limitations ), and to explain how you mitigated the impacts of these. Every research project has its limitations , so it’s important to acknowledge these openly and highlight your study’s value despite its limitations . Doing so demonstrates your understanding of research design, which will earn you marks. We’ll discuss limitations in a bit more detail later in this post, so stay tuned!

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

First off, it’s worth noting that the exact structure and contents of the methodology chapter will vary depending on the field of research (e.g., humanities, chemistry or engineering) as well as the university . So, be sure to always check the guidelines provided by your institution for clarity and, if possible, review past dissertations from your university. Here we’re going to discuss a generic structure for a methodology chapter typically found in the sciences.

Before you start writing, it’s always a good idea to draw up a rough outline to guide your writing. Don’t just start writing without knowing what you’ll discuss where. If you do, you’ll likely end up with a disjointed, ill-flowing narrative . You’ll then waste a lot of time rewriting in an attempt to try to stitch all the pieces together. Do yourself a favour and start with the end in mind .

Section 1 – Introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, the methodology chapter should have a brief introduction. In this section, you should remind your readers what the focus of your study is, especially the research aims . As we’ve discussed many times on the blog, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, it’s useful to frontload this component to remind the reader (and yourself!) what you’re trying to achieve.

In this section, you can also briefly mention how you’ll structure the chapter. This will help orient the reader and provide a bit of a roadmap so that they know what to expect. You don’t need a lot of detail here – just a brief outline will do.

Section 2 – The Methodology

The next section of your chapter is where you’ll present the actual methodology. In this section, you need to detail and justify the key methodological choices you’ve made in a logical, intuitive fashion. Importantly, this is the heart of your methodology chapter, so you need to get specific – don’t hold back on the details here. This is not one of those “less is more” situations.

Let’s take a look at the most common components you’ll likely need to cover. 

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to the underlying beliefs (i.e., the worldview) regarding how data about a phenomenon should be gathered , analysed and used . The research philosophy will serve as the core of your study and underpin all of the other research design choices, so it’s critically important that you understand which philosophy you’ll adopt and why you made that choice. If you’re not clear on this, take the time to get clarity before you make any further methodological choices.

While several research philosophies exist, two commonly adopted ones are positivism and interpretivism . These two sit roughly on opposite sides of the research philosophy spectrum.

Positivism states that the researcher can observe reality objectively and that there is only one reality, which exists independently of the observer. As a consequence, it is quite commonly the underlying research philosophy in quantitative studies and is oftentimes the assumed philosophy in the physical sciences.

Contrasted with this, interpretivism , which is often the underlying research philosophy in qualitative studies, assumes that the researcher performs a role in observing the world around them and that reality is unique to each observer . In other words, reality is observed subjectively .

These are just two philosophies (there are many more), but they demonstrate significantly different approaches to research and have a significant impact on all the methodological choices. Therefore, it’s vital that you clearly outline and justify your research philosophy at the beginning of your methodology chapter, as it sets the scene for everything that follows.

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

The next thing you would typically discuss in your methodology section is the research type. The starting point for this is to indicate whether the research you conducted is inductive or deductive .

Inductive research takes a bottom-up approach , where the researcher begins with specific observations or data and then draws general conclusions or theories from those observations. Therefore these studies tend to be exploratory in terms of approach.

Conversely , d eductive research takes a top-down approach , where the researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it using specific observations or data. Therefore these studies tend to be confirmatory in approach.

Related to this, you’ll need to indicate whether your study adopts a qualitative, quantitative or mixed  approach. As we’ve mentioned, there’s a strong link between this choice and your research philosophy, so make sure that your choices are tightly aligned . When you write this section up, remember to clearly justify your choices, as they form the foundation of your study.

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your research strategy (also referred to as a research design ). This methodological choice refers to the broader strategy in terms of how you’ll conduct your research, based on the aims of your study.

Several research strategies exist, including experimental , case studies , ethnography , grounded theory, action research , and phenomenology . Let’s take a look at two of these, experimental and ethnographic, to see how they contrast.

Experimental research makes use of the scientific method , where one group is the control group (in which no variables are manipulated ) and another is the experimental group (in which a specific variable is manipulated). This type of research is undertaken under strict conditions in a controlled, artificial environment (e.g., a laboratory). By having firm control over the environment, experimental research typically allows the researcher to establish causation between variables. Therefore, it can be a good choice if you have research aims that involve identifying causal relationships.

Ethnographic research , on the other hand, involves observing and capturing the experiences and perceptions of participants in their natural environment (for example, at home or in the office). In other words, in an uncontrolled environment.  Naturally, this means that this research strategy would be far less suitable if your research aims involve identifying causation, but it would be very valuable if you’re looking to explore and examine a group culture, for example.

As you can see, the right research strategy will depend largely on your research aims and research questions – in other words, what you’re trying to figure out. Therefore, as with every other methodological choice, it’s essential to justify why you chose the research strategy you did.

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

The next thing you’ll need to detail in your methodology chapter is the time horizon. There are two options here: cross-sectional and longitudinal . In other words, whether the data for your study were all collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) or at multiple points in time (longitudinal).

The choice you make here depends again on your research aims, objectives and research questions. If, for example, you aim to assess how a specific group of people’s perspectives regarding a topic change over time , you’d likely adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Another important factor to consider is simply whether you have the time necessary to adopt a longitudinal approach (which could involve collecting data over multiple months or even years). Oftentimes, the time pressures of your degree program will force your hand into adopting a cross-sectional time horizon, so keep this in mind.

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your sampling strategy . There are two main categories of sampling, probability and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves a random (and therefore representative) selection of participants from a population, whereas non-probability sampling entails selecting participants in a non-random  (and therefore non-representative) manner. For example, selecting participants based on ease of access (this is called a convenience sample).

The right sampling approach depends largely on what you’re trying to achieve in your study. Specifically, whether you trying to develop findings that are generalisable to a population or not. Practicalities and resource constraints also play a large role here, as it can oftentimes be challenging to gain access to a truly random sample. In the video below, we explore some of the most common sampling strategies.

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

Next up, you’ll need to explain how you’ll go about collecting the necessary data for your study. Your data collection method (or methods) will depend on the type of data that you plan to collect – in other words, qualitative or quantitative data.

Typically, quantitative research relies on surveys , data generated by lab equipment, analytics software or existing datasets. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often makes use of collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , participant observations, and ethnography.

So, as you can see, there is a tight link between this section and the design choices you outlined in earlier sections. Strong alignment between these sections, as well as your research aims and questions is therefore very important.

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

The final major methodological choice that you need to address is that of analysis techniques . In other words, how you’ll go about analysing your date once you’ve collected it. Here it’s important to be very specific about your analysis methods and/or techniques – don’t leave any room for interpretation. Also, as with all choices in this chapter, you need to justify each choice you make.

What exactly you discuss here will depend largely on the type of study you’re conducting (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). For qualitative studies, common analysis methods include content analysis , thematic analysis and discourse analysis . In the video below, we explain each of these in plain language.

For quantitative studies, you’ll almost always make use of descriptive statistics , and in many cases, you’ll also use inferential statistical techniques (e.g., correlation and regression analysis). In the video below, we unpack some of the core concepts involved in descriptive and inferential statistics.

In this section of your methodology chapter, it’s also important to discuss how you prepared your data for analysis, and what software you used (if any). For example, quantitative data will often require some initial preparation such as removing duplicates or incomplete responses . Similarly, qualitative data will often require transcription and perhaps even translation. As always, remember to state both what you did and why you did it.

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

With the key methodological choices outlined and justified, the next step is to discuss the limitations of your design. No research methodology is perfect – there will always be trade-offs between the “ideal” methodology and what’s practical and viable, given your constraints. Therefore, this section of your methodology chapter is where you’ll discuss the trade-offs you had to make, and why these were justified given the context.

Methodological limitations can vary greatly from study to study, ranging from common issues such as time and budget constraints to issues of sample or selection bias . For example, you may find that you didn’t manage to draw in enough respondents to achieve the desired sample size (and therefore, statistically significant results), or your sample may be skewed heavily towards a certain demographic, thereby negatively impacting representativeness .

In this section, it’s important to be critical of the shortcomings of your study. There’s no use trying to hide them (your marker will be aware of them regardless). By being critical, you’ll demonstrate to your marker that you have a strong understanding of research theory, so don’t be shy here. At the same time, don’t beat your study to death . State the limitations, why these were justified, how you mitigated their impacts to the best degree possible, and how your study still provides value despite these limitations .

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

Finally, it’s time to wrap up the methodology chapter with a brief concluding summary. In this section, you’ll want to concisely summarise what you’ve presented in the chapter. Here, it can be a good idea to use a figure to summarise the key decisions, especially if your university recommends using a specific model (for example, Saunders’ Research Onion ).

Importantly, this section needs to be brief – a paragraph or two maximum (it’s a summary, after all). Also, make sure that when you write up your concluding summary, you include only what you’ve already discussed in your chapter; don’t add any new information.

Methodology Chapter Example

In the video below, we walk you through an example of a high-quality research methodology chapter from a dissertation. We also unpack our free methodology chapter template so that you can see how best to structure your chapter.

Wrapping Up

And there you have it – the methodology chapter in a nutshell. As we’ve mentioned, the exact contents and structure of this chapter can vary between universities , so be sure to check in with your institution before you start writing. If possible, try to find dissertations or theses from former students of your specific degree program – this will give you a strong indication of the expectations and norms when it comes to the methodology chapter (and all the other chapters!).

Also, remember the golden rule of the methodology chapter – justify every choice ! Make sure that you clearly explain the “why” for every “what”, and reference credible methodology textbooks or academic sources to back up your justifications.

If you need a helping hand with your research methodology (or any other component of your research), be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through every step of the research journey. Until next time, good luck!

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

55 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

Thank you very much. I must say the information presented was succinct, coherent and invaluable. It is well put together and easy to comprehend. I have a great guide to create the research methodology for my dissertation.

Highly clear and useful.

I understand a bit on the explanation above. I want to have some coach but I’m still student and don’t have any budget to hire one. A lot of question I want to ask.

Thank you so much. This concluded my day plan. Thank you so much.

Thanks it was helpful

Great information. It would be great though if you could show us practical examples.

Thanks so much for this information. God bless and be with you

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

I was totally confused by other explanations. Thank you so much!.

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

This is exactly what I was looking for. The explanation is so detailed and easy to comprehend. Well done and thank you.

Great job. You just summarised everything in the easiest and most comprehensible way possible. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for the ideas you have given this will really help me a lot. Thank you and God Bless.

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

Please accept my sincere gratitude. I have to say that the information that was delivered was congruent, concise, and quite helpful. It is clear and straightforward, making it simple to understand. I am in possession of an excellent manual that will assist me in developing the research methods for my dissertation.

Thank you for your great explanation. It really helped me construct my methodology paper.

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

The explanation I have been looking for. So clear Thank you

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

helped me create the in depth and thorough methodology for my dissertation

Thank you for the great explaination.please construct one methodology for me

I appreciate you for the explanation of methodology. Please construct one methodology on the topic: The effects influencing students dropout among schools for my thesis

This helped me complete my methods section of my dissertation with ease. I have managed to write a thorough and concise methodology!

its so good in deed

wow …what an easy to follow presentation. very invaluable content shared. utmost important.

Peace be upon you, I am Dr. Ahmed Khedr, a former part-time professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. I am currently teaching research methods, and I have been dealing with your esteemed site for several years, and I found that despite my long experience with research methods sites, it is one of the smoothest sites for evaluating the material for students, For this reason, I relied on it a lot in teaching and translated most of what was written into Arabic and published it on my own page on Facebook. Thank you all… Everything I posted on my page is provided with the names of the writers of Grad coach, the title of the article, and the site. My best regards.

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

Only true experts could provide such helpful, fantastic, and inspiring knowledge about Methodology. Thank you very much! God be with you and us all!

highly appreciate your effort.

This is a very well thought out post. Very informative and a great read.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

I love you Emma, you are simply amazing with clear explanations with complete information. GradCoach really helped me to do my assignment here in Auckland. Mostly, Emma make it so simple and enjoyable

Thank you very much for this informative and synthesised version.

thank you, It was a very informative presentation, you made it just to the point in a straightforward way .

Help me write a methodology on the topic “challenges faced by family businesses in Ghana

Well articulated, clear, and concise. I got a lot from this writings. Thanks

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Here's What You Need to Understand About Research Methodology

Table of Contents

Research methodology involves a systematic and well-structured approach to conducting scholarly or scientific inquiries. Knowing the significance of research methodology and its different components is crucial as it serves as the basis for any study.

Typically, your research topic will start as a broad idea you want to investigate more thoroughly. Once you’ve identified a research problem and created research questions , you must choose the appropriate methodology and frameworks to address those questions effectively.

What is the definition of a research methodology?

Research methodology is the process or the way you intend to execute your study. The methodology section of a research paper outlines how you plan to conduct your study. It covers various steps such as collecting data, statistical analysis, observing participants, and other procedures involved in the research process

The methods section should give a description of the process that will convert your idea into a study. Additionally, the outcomes of your process must provide valid and reliable results resonant with the aims and objectives of your research. This thumb rule holds complete validity, no matter whether your paper has inclinations for qualitative or quantitative usage.

Studying research methods used in related studies can provide helpful insights and direction for your own research. Now easily discover papers related to your topic on SciSpace and utilize our AI research assistant, Copilot , to quickly review the methodologies applied in different papers.

The need for a good research methodology

While deciding on your approach towards your research, the reason or factors you weighed in choosing a particular problem and formulating a research topic need to be validated and explained. A research methodology helps you do exactly that. Moreover, a good research methodology lets you build your argument to validate your research work performed through various data collection methods, analytical methods, and other essential points.

Just imagine it as a strategy documented to provide an overview of what you intend to do.

While undertaking any research writing or performing the research itself, you may get drifted in not something of much importance. In such a case, a research methodology helps you to get back to your outlined work methodology.

A research methodology helps in keeping you accountable for your work. Additionally, it can help you evaluate whether your work is in sync with your original aims and objectives or not. Besides, a good research methodology enables you to navigate your research process smoothly and swiftly while providing effective planning to achieve your desired results.

What is the basic structure of a research methodology?

Usually, you must ensure to include the following stated aspects while deciding over the basic structure of your research methodology:

1. Your research procedure

Explain what research methods you’re going to use. Whether you intend to proceed with quantitative or qualitative, or a composite of both approaches, you need to state that explicitly. The option among the three depends on your research’s aim, objectives, and scope.

2. Provide the rationality behind your chosen approach

Based on logic and reason, let your readers know why you have chosen said research methodologies. Additionally, you have to build strong arguments supporting why your chosen research method is the best way to achieve the desired outcome.

3. Explain your mechanism

The mechanism encompasses the research methods or instruments you will use to develop your research methodology. It usually refers to your data collection methods. You can use interviews, surveys, physical questionnaires, etc., of the many available mechanisms as research methodology instruments. The data collection method is determined by the type of research and whether the data is quantitative data(includes numerical data) or qualitative data (perception, morale, etc.) Moreover, you need to put logical reasoning behind choosing a particular instrument.

4. Significance of outcomes

The results will be available once you have finished experimenting. However, you should also explain how you plan to use the data to interpret the findings. This section also aids in understanding the problem from within, breaking it down into pieces, and viewing the research problem from various perspectives.

5. Reader’s advice

Anything that you feel must be explained to spread more awareness among readers and focus groups must be included and described in detail. You should not just specify your research methodology on the assumption that a reader is aware of the topic.  

All the relevant information that explains and simplifies your research paper must be included in the methodology section. If you are conducting your research in a non-traditional manner, give a logical justification and list its benefits.

6. Explain your sample space

Include information about the sample and sample space in the methodology section. The term "sample" refers to a smaller set of data that a researcher selects or chooses from a larger group of people or focus groups using a predetermined selection method. Let your readers know how you are going to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant samples. How you figured out those exact numbers to back your research methodology, i.e. the sample spacing of instruments, must be discussed thoroughly.

For example, if you are going to conduct a survey or interview, then by what procedure will you select the interviewees (or sample size in case of surveys), and how exactly will the interview or survey be conducted.

7. Challenges and limitations

This part, which is frequently assumed to be unnecessary, is actually very important. The challenges and limitations that your chosen strategy inherently possesses must be specified while you are conducting different types of research.

The importance of a good research methodology

You must have observed that all research papers, dissertations, or theses carry a chapter entirely dedicated to research methodology. This section helps maintain your credibility as a better interpreter of results rather than a manipulator.

A good research methodology always explains the procedure, data collection methods and techniques, aim, and scope of the research. In a research study, it leads to a well-organized, rationality-based approach, while the paper lacking it is often observed as messy or disorganized.

You should pay special attention to validating your chosen way towards the research methodology. This becomes extremely important in case you select an unconventional or a distinct method of execution.

Curating and developing a strong, effective research methodology can assist you in addressing a variety of situations, such as:

• When someone tries to duplicate or expand upon your research after few years.
• If a contradiction or conflict of facts occurs at a later time. This gives you the security you need to deal with these contradictions while still being able to defend your approach.
• Gaining a tactical approach in getting your research completed in time. Just ensure you are using the right approach while drafting your research methodology, and it can help you achieve your desired outcomes. Additionally, it provides a better explanation and understanding of the research question itself.
• Documenting the results so that the final outcome of the research stays as you intended it to be while starting.

Instruments you could use while writing a good research methodology

As a researcher, you must choose which tools or data collection methods that fit best in terms of the relevance of your research. This decision has to be wise.

There exists many research equipments or tools that you can use to carry out your research process. These are classified as:

a. Interviews (One-on-One or a Group)

An interview aimed to get your desired research outcomes can be undertaken in many different ways. For example, you can design your interview as structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. What sets them apart is the degree of formality in the questions. On the other hand, in a group interview, your aim should be to collect more opinions and group perceptions from the focus groups on a certain topic rather than looking out for some formal answers.

In surveys, you are in better control if you specifically draft the questions you seek the response for. For example, you may choose to include free-style questions that can be answered descriptively, or you may provide a multiple-choice type response for questions. Besides, you can also opt to choose both ways, deciding what suits your research process and purpose better.

c. Sample Groups

Similar to the group interviews, here, you can select a group of individuals and assign them a topic to discuss or freely express their opinions over that. You can simultaneously note down the answers and later draft them appropriately, deciding on the relevance of every response.

d. Observations

If your research domain is humanities or sociology, observations are the best-proven method to draw your research methodology. Of course, you can always include studying the spontaneous response of the participants towards a situation or conducting the same but in a more structured manner. A structured observation means putting the participants in a situation at a previously decided time and then studying their responses.

Of all the tools described above, it is you who should wisely choose the instruments and decide what’s the best fit for your research. You must not restrict yourself from multiple methods or a combination of a few instruments if appropriate in drafting a good research methodology.

Types of research methodology

A research methodology exists in various forms. Depending upon their approach, whether centered around words, numbers, or both, methodologies are distinguished as qualitative, quantitative, or an amalgamation of both.

1. Qualitative research methodology

When a research methodology primarily focuses on words and textual data, then it is generally referred to as qualitative research methodology. This type is usually preferred among researchers when the aim and scope of the research are mainly theoretical and explanatory.

The instruments used are observations, interviews, and sample groups. You can use this methodology if you are trying to study human behavior or response in some situations. Generally, qualitative research methodology is widely used in sociology, psychology, and other related domains.

2. Quantitative research methodology

If your research is majorly centered on data, figures, and stats, then analyzing these numerical data is often referred to as quantitative research methodology. You can use quantitative research methodology if your research requires you to validate or justify the obtained results.

In quantitative methods, surveys, tests, experiments, and evaluations of current databases can be advantageously used as instruments If your research involves testing some hypothesis, then use this methodology.

3. Amalgam methodology

As the name suggests, the amalgam methodology uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This methodology is used when a part of the research requires you to verify the facts and figures, whereas the other part demands you to discover the theoretical and explanatory nature of the research question.

The instruments for the amalgam methodology require you to conduct interviews and surveys, including tests and experiments. The outcome of this methodology can be insightful and valuable as it provides precise test results in line with theoretical explanations and reasoning.

The amalgam method, makes your work both factual and rational at the same time.

Final words: How to decide which is the best research methodology?

If you have kept your sincerity and awareness intact with the aims and scope of research well enough, you must have got an idea of which research methodology suits your work best.

Before deciding which research methodology answers your research question, you must invest significant time in reading and doing your homework for that. Taking references that yield relevant results should be your first approach to establishing a research methodology.

Moreover, you should never refrain from exploring other options. Before setting your work in stone, you must try all the available options as it explains why the choice of research methodology that you finally make is more appropriate than the other available options.

You should always go for a quantitative research methodology if your research requires gathering large amounts of data, figures, and statistics. This research methodology will provide you with results if your research paper involves the validation of some hypothesis.

Whereas, if  you are looking for more explanations, reasons, opinions, and public perceptions around a theory, you must use qualitative research methodology.The choice of an appropriate research methodology ultimately depends on what you want to achieve through your research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Research Methodology

1. how to write a research methodology.

You can always provide a separate section for research methodology where you should specify details about the methods and instruments used during the research, discussions on result analysis, including insights into the background information, and conveying the research limitations.

2. What are the types of research methodology?

There generally exists four types of research methodology i.e.

• Observation
• Experimental
• Derivational

3. What is the true meaning of research methodology?

The set of techniques or procedures followed to discover and analyze the information gathered to validate or justify a research outcome is generally called Research Methodology.

4. Where lies the importance of research methodology?

Your research methodology directly reflects the validity of your research outcomes and how well-informed your research work is. Moreover, it can help future researchers cite or refer to your research if they plan to use a similar research methodology.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Using AI for research: A beginner’s guide

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
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

Methodology for research I

Rakesh garg.

Department of Onco-anaesthesiology and Palliative Medicine, Dr. BRAIRCH, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

The conduct of research requires a systematic approach involving diligent planning and its execution as planned. It comprises various essential predefined components such as aims, population, conduct/technique, outcome and statistical considerations. These need to be objective, reliable and in a repeatable format. Hence, the understanding of the basic aspects of methodology is essential for any researcher. This is a narrative review and focuses on various aspects of the methodology for conduct of a clinical research. The relevant keywords were used for literature search from various databases and from bibliographies of the articles.

INTRODUCTION

Research is a process for acquiring new knowledge in systematic approach involving diligent planning and interventions for discovery or interpretation of the new-gained information.[ 1 , 2 ] The outcome reliability and validity of a study would depend on well-designed study with objective, reliable, repeatable methodology with appropriate conduct, data collection and its analysis with logical interpretation. Inappropriate or faulty methodology would make study unacceptable and may even provide clinicians faulty information. Hence, the understanding the basic aspects of methodology is essential.

This is a narrative review based on existing literature search. This review focuses on specific aspects of the methodology for conduct of a research/clinical trial. The relevant keywords for literature search included ‘research’, ‘study design’, ‘study controls’, ‘study population’, ‘inclusion/exclusion criteria’, ‘variables’, ‘sampling’, ‘randomisation’, ‘blinding’, ‘masking’, ‘allocation concealment’, ‘sample size’, ‘bias’, ‘confounders’ alone and in combinations. The search engine included PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane. The bibliographies of the searched articles were specifically searched for missing manuscripts from the search engines and manually from the print journals in the library.

The following text highlights/describes the basic essentials of methodology which needs to be adopted for conducting a good research.

Aims and objectives of study

The aims and objectives of research need to be known thoroughly and should be specified before start of the study based on thorough literature search and inputs from professional experience. Aims and objectives state whether nature of the problem (formulated as research question or research problem) has to be investigated or its solution has to be found by different more appropriate method. The lacunae in existing knowledge would help formulate a research question. These statements have to be objective specific with all required details such as population, intervention, control, outcome variables along with time interventions.[ 3 , 4 , 5 ] This would help formulate a hypothesis which is a scientifically derived statement about a particular problem in the defined population. The hypothesis generation depends on the type of study as well. Researcher observation related to any aspect initiates hypothesis generation. A cross-sectional survey would generate hypothesis. An observational study establishes associations and supports/rejects the hypothesis. An experiment would finally test the hypothesis.[ 5 , 6 , 7 ]

STUDY POPULATION AND PATIENT SELECTION, STUDY AREA, STUDY PERIOD

The flow of study in an experimental design has various sequential steps [ Figure 1 ].[ 1 , 2 , 6 ] Population refers to an aggregate of individuals, things, cases, etc., i.e., observation units that are of interest and remain the focus of investigation. This reference population or target population is the group on which the study outcome would be extrapolated.[ 6 ] Once this target population is identified, researcher needs to assess whether it is possible to study all the individuals for an outcome. Usually, all cannot be included, so a study population is sampled. The important attribute of a sample is that every individual should have equal and non-zero chance of getting included in the study. The sample should be made independently, i.e., selection of one does not influence inclusion or exclusion of other. In clinical practice, the sampling is restricted to a particular place (patients attending to clinics or posted for surgery) or includes multiple centres rather than sampling the universe. Hence, the researcher should be cautious in generalising the outcomes. For example, in a tertiary care hospital, patients are referred and may have more risk factors as compared to primary centres where a patient with lesser severity are managed. Hence, researchers must disclose details of the study area. The study period needs to be disclosed as it would make readers understand the population characteristics. Furthermore, study period would tell about relevance of the study with respect to the present period.

Flow of an experimental study

The size of sample has to be pre-determined, analytically approached and sufficiently large to represent the population.[ 7 , 8 , 9 ] Including a larger sample would lead to wastage of resources, risk that the true treatment effect may be missed due to heterogeneity of large population and would be time-consuming.[ 6 ] If a study is too small, it will not provide the suitable answer to research question. The main determinant of the sample size includes clinical hypothesis, primary endpoint, study design, probability of Type I and II error, power, minimum treatment difference of clinical importance.[ 7 ] Attrition of patients should be attended during the sample size calculation.[ 6 , 9 ]

SELECTION OF STUDY DESIGN

The appropriate study design is essential for the intervention outcome in terms of its best possible and most reliable estimate. The study design selection is based on parameters such as objectives, therapeutic area, treatment comparison, outcome and phase of the trial.[ 6 ] The study design may be broadly classified as:[ 5 , 6 , 7 ]

• Descriptive: Case report, case series, survey
• Analytical: Case-control, cohort, cross-sectional
• Experimental: Randomised controlled trial (RCT), quasi-experiment
• Qualitative.

For studying causality, analytical observational studies would be prudent to avoid posing risk to subjects. For clinical drugs or techniques, experimental study would be more appropriate.[ 6 ] The treatments remain concurrent, i.e. the active and control interventions happen at the same period in RCT. It may parallel group design wherein treatment and control groups are allocated to different individuals. This requires comparing a placebo group or a gold standard intervention (control) with newer agent or technique.[ 6 ] In matched-design RCT, randomisation is between matched pairs. For cross-over study design, two or more treatments are administered sequentially to the same subject and thus each subject acts as its own control. However, researches should be aware of ‘carryover effect’ of the previous intervention and suitable wash period needs to be ensured. In cohort study design, subjects with disease/symptom or free of study variable are followed for a particular period. The cross-sectional study examines the prevalence of the disease, surveys, validating instruments, tools and questionnaires. The qualitative research is a study design wherein health-related issue in the population is explored with regard to its description, exploration and explanation.[ 6 ]

Selection of controls

The control is required because disease may be self-remitting, Hawthorne effect (change in response or behaviours of subjects when included in study), placebo effect (patients feel improvement even with placebo), effect of confounder, co-intervention and regression to the mean phenomenon (for example, white coat hypertension, i.e. patients at recruitment may have higher study parameter but subsequently may get normal).[ 2 , 6 , 7 ] The control could be a placebo, no treatment, different dose or regimen or intervention or the standard/gold treatment. Avoiding a routine care for placebo is not desirable and unethical. For instance, for studying analgesic regimen, it would be unethical not to administer analgesics in a control group. It is advisable to continue standard of care, i.e. providing routine analgesics even in control group. The use of placebo or no treatment may be considered where no current proven intervention exists or placebo is required to evaluate efficacy or safety of an intervention without serious or irreversible harm.

The comparisons to be made in the study among groups also need to be specified.[ 6 , 7 , 9 ] These comparisons may prove superiority, non-inferiority or equivalence among groups. The superiority trials demonstrate superiority either to a placebo in a placebo-controlled trial or to an active control treatment. The non-inferiority trials would prove that the efficacy of an intervention is no worse than that of the active comparative treatment. The equivalence trials demonstrate that the outcome of two or more interventions differs by a clinically unimportant margin and either technique or drug may be clinically acceptable.

STUDY TOOLS

The study tools such as measurements scales, questionnaires and scoring systems need to be specified with an objective definition. These tools should be validated before its use and appropriate use by the research staff is mandatory to avoid any bias. These tools should be simple and easily understandable to everyone involved in the study.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

In clinical research, specific group of relatively homogeneous patient population needs to be selected.[ 6 ] Inclusion and exclusion criteria define who can be included or excluded from the study sample. The inclusion criteria identify the study population in a consistent, reliable, uniform and objective manner. The exclusion criteria include factors or characteristics that make the recruited population ineligible for the study. These factors may be confounders for the outcome parameter. For example, patients with liver disease would be excluded if coagulation parameters would impact the outcome. The exclusion criteria are inclusive of inclusion criteria.

VARIABLES: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

Variables are definite characteristics/parameters that are being studied. Clear, precise and objective definition for measurement of these characteristics needs to be defined.[ 2 ] These should be measurable and interpretable, sensitive to the objective of the study and clinically relevant. The most common end-point is related to efficacy, safety and quality of life. The study variables could be primary or secondary.[ 6 ] The primary end-point, usually one, provides the most relevant, reliable and convincing evidence related to the aim and objective. It is the characteristic on the basis of which research question/hypothesis has been formulated. It reflects clinically relevant and important treatment benefits. It determines the sample size. Secondary end-points are the other objectives indirectly related to primary objective with regard to its close association or they may be some associated effects/adverse effects related to intervention. The measurement timing of the variables must be defined a priori . These are usually done at screening, baseline and completion of trial.

The study end-point parameter may be clinical or surrogate in nature. A clinical end-point is related directly to clinical implications with regard to beneficial outcome of the intervention. The surrogate end-point is indirectly related to patient clinical benefit and is usually measures laboratory measurement or physical sign as a substitute for a clinically meaningful end-point. Surrogate end-points are more convenient, easily measurable, repeatable and faster.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES: RANDOMISATION, BLINDING/MASKING AND ALLOCATION CONCEALMENT

Randomisation.

Randomisation or random allocation is a method to allocate individuals into one of the groups (arms) of a study.[ 1 , 2 ] It is the basic assumption required for statistical analysis of data. The randomisation would maximise statistical power, especially in subgroup analyses, minimise selection bias and minimise allocation bias (or confounding). This leads to distribution of all the characteristics, measured or non-measured, visible or invisible and known or unknown equally into the groups. Randomisation uses various strategies as per the study design and outcome.

Probability sampling/randomisation

• Simple/unrestricted: Each individual of the population has the same chance of being included in the sample. This is used when population is small, homogenous and the sampling frame is available. For example, lottery method, table of random numbers or computer-generated
• Stratified: It is used in non-homogenous population. Population is divided into homogenous groups (strata), and the sample is drawn for each stratum at random. It keeps the ‘characteristics’ of the participants (for example, age, weight or physical status) as similar as possible across the study groups. The allocation to strata can be by equal or proportional allocation
• Systematic: This is used when complete and up-to-date sampling frame is available. The first unit is selected at random and the rest get selected automatically according to some pre-designed pattern
• Cluster: This applies for large geographical area. Population is divided into a finite numbers of distinct and identifiable units (sampling units/element). A group of such elements is a cluster and sampling of these clusters is done. All units of the selected clusters are included in the study
• Multistage: This applies for large nationwide surveys. Sampling is done in stages using random sampling. Here, sub-sampling within the selected clusters is done. If procedure is repeated in more number of stages, then they termed as multistage sampling
• Multiphase: Here, some data are collected from whole of the units of a sample, and other data are collected from a sub-sample of the units constituting the original sample (two-phase sampling). If three or more phases are used, then they termed as multiphase sampling.

Non-probability sampling/randomisation

This technique does not give equal and non-zero chances to all the individuals in the population to be selected in the sample.

• Convenience: Sampling is done as per the convenience of the investigator, i.e., easily available
• Purposive/judgemental/selective/subjective: The sample is selected as per judgement of investigator
• Quota: It is done as per judgement of the interviewer based on some specified characteristics such as sex and physical status.

ALLOCATION CONCEALMENT

Allocation concealment refers to the process ensuring the person who generates the random assignment remains blind to what arm the person will be allotted.[ 8 , 9 , 10 ] It is a strategy to avoid ascertainment or selection bias. For example, based on an outcome, researcher may recruit a specific category as lesser sicker patients to a particular group and vice versa to the other group. This selective recruitment would underestimate (if treatment group is sicker) or overestimate (if control group is sicker) the intervention effect.[ 9 ] The allocation should be concealed from investigator till the initiation of intervention. Hence, randomisation should be performed by an independent person who is not involved in the conduct of the study or its monitoring. The randomisation list is kept secret. The methods of allocation concealment include:[ 9 , 10 ]

• Central randomisation: Some centrally independent authority performs randomisation and informs the investigators via telephone, E-mail or fax
• Pharmacy controlled: Here, pharmacy provides coded drugs for use
• Sequentially numbered containers: Identical containers equal in weight, similar in appearance and tamper-proof are used
• Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes: The randomised numbers are concealed in opaque envelope to be opened just before intervention and are the most common and easy to perform method.

BLINDING/MASKING

Blinding ensures the group to which the study subjects are assigned not known or easily ascertained by those who are ‘masked’, i.e., participants, investigators, evaluators or statistician to limit occurrence of bias.[ 1 , 2 ] It confirms that the intervention and standard or placebo treatment appears the same. Blinding is different from allocation concealment. Allocation concealment is done before, whereas blinding is done at and after initiation of treatment. In situations such as study drugs with different formulations or medical versus surgical interventions, blinding may not be feasible.[ 8 ] Sham blocks or needling in subjects may not be ethical. In such situation, the outcome measurement should be made objective to the fullest to avoid bias and whosoever may be masked should be blinded. The research manuscript must mention the details about blinding including who was blinded after assignment to interventions and process or technique used. Blinding could be:[ 8 , 9 ]

• Unblinded: The process cannot conceal randomisation
• Single blind: One of the participants, investigators or evaluators remains masked
• Double-blind: The investigator and participants remained masked
• Triple blind: Not only investigator but also participant maintains a blind data analysis.

BIAS AND CONFOUNDERS

Bias is a systematic deviation of the real, true effect (better or worst outcome) resulting from faulty study design.[ 1 , 2 ] The various steps of study such as randomisation, concealment, blinding, objective measurement and strict protocol adherence would reduce bias.

The various possible and potential biases in a trial can be:[ 7 ]

• Investigator bias: An investigator either consciously or subconsciously favours one group than other
• Evaluator bias: The investigator taking end-point variable measurement intentionally or unintentionally favours one group over other. It is more common with subjective or quality of life end-points
• Performance bias: It occurs when participant knows of exposure to intervention or its response, be it inactive or active
• Selection bias: This occurs due to sampling method such as admission bias (selective factors for admission), non-response bias (refusals to participate and the population who refused may be different from who participated) or sample is not representative of the population
• Ascertainment or information bias: It occurs due to measurement error or misclassification of patient. For example, diagnostic bias (more diagnostic procedures performed in cases as compared with controls), recall bias (error of categorisation, investigator aggressively search for exposure variables in cases)
• Allocation bias: Allocation bias occurs when the measured treatment effect differs from the true treatment effect
• Detection bias: It occurs when observations in one group are not as vigilantly sought as in the other
• Attrition bias/loss-to-follow-up bias: It occurs when patient is lost to follow-up preferentially in a particular group.

Confounding occurs when outcome parameters are affected by effects of other factors not directly relevant to the research question.[ 1 , 7 ] For example, if impact of drug on haemodynamics is studied on hypertensive patients, then diabetes mellitus would be confounder as it also effects the hemodynamic response to autonomic disturbances. Hence, it becomes prudent during the designing stage for a study that all potential confounders should be carefully considered. If the confounders are known, then they can be adjusted statistically but with loss of precision (statistical power). Hence, confounding can be controlled either by preventing it or by adjusting for it in the statistical analysis. The confounding can be controlled by restriction by study design (for example, restricted age range as 2-6 years), matching (use of constraints in the selection of the comparison group so that the study and comparison group have similar distribution with regard to potential confounder), stratification in the analysis without matching (involves restriction of the analysis to narrow ranges of the extraneous variable) and mathematical modelling in the analysis (use of advanced statistical methods of analysis such as multiple linear regression and logistic regression). Strategies during data analysis include stratified analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method to adjust for confounders, using a matched design approach, data restriction and model fitting using regression techniques.

Basic understanding of the methodology is essential to have reliable, repeatable and clinically acceptable outcome. The study plan including all its components needs to be designed before start of the study, and the study protocol should be strictly adhered during the conduct of study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

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

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

• 3 minute read
• 50.3K views

Table of Contents

Choosing an optimal research methodology is crucial for the success of any research project. The methodology you select will determine the type of data you collect, how you collect it, and how you analyse it. Understanding the different types of research methods available along with their strengths and weaknesses, is thus imperative to make an informed decision.

Understanding different research methods:

There are several research methods available depending on the type of study you are conducting, i.e., whether it is laboratory-based, clinical, epidemiological, or survey based . Some common methodologies include qualitative research, quantitative research, experimental research, survey-based research, and action research. Each method can be opted for and modified, depending on the type of research hypotheses and objectives.

Qualitative vs quantitative research:

When deciding on a research methodology, one of the key factors to consider is whether your research will be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative research is used to understand people’s experiences, concepts, thoughts, or behaviours . Quantitative research, on the contrary, deals with numbers, graphs, and charts, and is used to test or confirm hypotheses, assumptions, and theories. 

Qualitative research methodology:

Qualitative research is often used to examine issues that are not well understood, and to gather additional insights on these topics. Qualitative research methods include open-ended survey questions, observations of behaviours described through words, and reviews of literature that has explored similar theories and ideas. These methods are used to understand how language is used in real-world situations, identify common themes or overarching ideas, and describe and interpret various texts. Data analysis for qualitative research typically includes discourse analysis, thematic analysis, and textual analysis. 

Quantitative research methodology:

The goal of quantitative research is to test hypotheses, confirm assumptions and theories, and determine cause-and-effect relationships. Quantitative research methods include experiments, close-ended survey questions, and countable and numbered observations. Data analysis for quantitative research relies heavily on statistical methods.

Analysing qualitative vs quantitative data:

The methods used for data analysis also differ for qualitative and quantitative research. As mentioned earlier, quantitative data is generally analysed using statistical methods and does not leave much room for speculation. It is more structured and follows a predetermined plan. In quantitative research, the researcher starts with a hypothesis and uses statistical methods to test it. Contrarily, methods used for qualitative data analysis can identify patterns and themes within the data, rather than provide statistical measures of the data. It is an iterative process, where the researcher goes back and forth trying to gauge the larger implications of the data through different perspectives and revising the analysis if required.

When to use qualitative vs quantitative research:

The choice between qualitative and quantitative research will depend on the gap that the research project aims to address, and specific objectives of the study. If the goal is to establish facts about a subject or topic, quantitative research is an appropriate choice. However, if the goal is to understand people’s experiences or perspectives, qualitative research may be more suitable. 

Conclusion:

In conclusion, an understanding of the different research methods available, their applicability, advantages, and disadvantages is essential for making an informed decision on the best methodology for your project. If you need any additional guidance on which research methodology to opt for, you can head over to Elsevier Author Services (EAS). EAS experts will guide you throughout the process and help you choose the perfect methodology for your research goals.

Why is data validation important in research?

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

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

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

Writing a good review article

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

Research methodology 1,2 is a structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyze, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. A research methodology is like a plan for carrying out research and helps keep researchers on track by limiting the scope of the research. Several aspects must be considered before selecting an appropriate research methodology, such as research limitations and ethical concerns that may affect your research.

The research methodology section in a scientific paper describes the different methodological choices made, such as the data collection and analysis methods, and why these choices were selected. The reasons should explain why the methods chosen are the most appropriate to answer the research question. A good research methodology also helps ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings. There are three types of research methodology—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method, which can be chosen based on the research objectives.

What is research methodology ?

A research methodology describes the techniques and procedures used to identify and analyze information regarding a specific research topic. It is a process by which researchers design their study so that they can achieve their objectives using the selected research instruments. It includes all the important aspects of research, including research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and the overall framework within which the research is conducted. While these points can help you understand what is research methodology, you also need to know why it is important to pick the right methodology.

Why is research methodology important?

Having a good research methodology in place has the following advantages: 3

• Helps other researchers who may want to replicate your research; the explanations will be of benefit to them.
• You can easily answer any questions about your research if they arise at a later stage.
• A research methodology provides a framework and guidelines for researchers to clearly define research questions, hypotheses, and objectives.
• It helps researchers identify the most appropriate research design, sampling technique, and data collection and analysis methods.
• A sound research methodology helps researchers ensure that their findings are valid and reliable and free from biases and errors.
• It also helps ensure that ethical guidelines are followed while conducting research.
• A good research methodology helps researchers in planning their research efficiently, by ensuring optimum usage of their time and resources.

Writing the methods section of a research paper? Let Paperpal help you achieve perfection

Types of research methodology.

There are three types of research methodology based on the type of research and the data required. 1

• Quantitative research methodology focuses on measuring and testing numerical data. This approach is good for reaching a large number of people in a short amount of time. This type of research helps in testing the causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing results to wider populations.
• Qualitative research methodology examines the opinions, behaviors, and experiences of people. It collects and analyzes words and textual data. This research methodology requires fewer participants but is still more time consuming because the time spent per participant is quite large. This method is used in exploratory research where the research problem being investigated is not clearly defined.
• Mixed-method research methodology uses the characteristics of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in the same study. This method allows researchers to validate their findings, verify if the results observed using both methods are complementary, and explain any unexpected results obtained from one method by using the other method.

What are the types of sampling designs in research methodology?

Sampling 4 is an important part of a research methodology and involves selecting a representative sample of the population to conduct the study, making statistical inferences about them, and estimating the characteristics of the whole population based on these inferences. There are two types of sampling designs in research methodology—probability and nonprobability.

• Probability sampling

In this type of sampling design, a sample is chosen from a larger population using some form of random selection, that is, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The different types of probability sampling are:

• Systematic —sample members are chosen at regular intervals. It requires selecting a starting point for the sample and sample size determination that can be repeated at regular intervals. This type of sampling method has a predefined range; hence, it is the least time consuming.
• Stratified —researchers divide the population into smaller groups that don’t overlap but represent the entire population. While sampling, these groups can be organized, and then a sample can be drawn from each group separately.
• Cluster —the population is divided into clusters based on demographic parameters like age, sex, location, etc.
• Convenience —selects participants who are most easily accessible to researchers due to geographical proximity, availability at a particular time, etc.
• Purposive —participants are selected at the researcher’s discretion. Researchers consider the purpose of the study and the understanding of the target audience.
• Snowball —already selected participants use their social networks to refer the researcher to other potential participants.
• Quota —while designing the study, the researchers decide how many people with which characteristics to include as participants. The characteristics help in choosing people most likely to provide insights into the subject.

What are data collection methods?

During research, data are collected using various methods depending on the research methodology being followed and the research methods being undertaken. Both qualitative and quantitative research have different data collection methods, as listed below.

Qualitative research 5

• One-on-one interviews: Helps the interviewers understand a respondent’s subjective opinion and experience pertaining to a specific topic or event
• Document study/literature review/record keeping: Researchers’ review of already existing written materials such as archives, annual reports, research articles, guidelines, policy documents, etc.
• Focus groups: Constructive discussions that usually include a small sample of about 6-10 people and a moderator, to understand the participants’ opinion on a given topic.
• Qualitative observation : Researchers collect data using their five senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing).

Quantitative research 6

• Sampling: The most common type is probability sampling.
• Interviews: Commonly telephonic or done in-person.
• Observations: Structured observations are most commonly used in quantitative research. In this method, researchers make observations about specific behaviors of individuals in a structured setting.
• Document review: Reviewing existing research or documents to collect evidence for supporting the research.
• Surveys and questionnaires. Surveys can be administered both online and offline depending on the requirement and sample size.

Let Paperpal help you write the perfect research methods section. Start now!

What are data analysis methods.

The data collected using the various methods for qualitative and quantitative research need to be analyzed to generate meaningful conclusions. These data analysis methods 7 also differ between quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative research involves a deductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed at the beginning of the research and precise measurement is required. The methods include statistical analysis applications to analyze numerical data and are grouped into two categories—descriptive and inferential.

Descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of different types of data to present it in a way that ensures the patterns become meaningful. The different types of descriptive analysis methods are:

• Measures of frequency (count, percent, frequency)
• Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode)
• Measures of dispersion or variation (range, variance, standard deviation)
• Measure of position (percentile ranks, quartile ranks)

Inferential analysis is used to make predictions about a larger population based on the analysis of the data collected from a smaller population. This analysis is used to study the relationships between different variables. Some commonly used inferential data analysis methods are:

• Correlation: To understand the relationship between two or more variables.
• Cross-tabulation: Analyze the relationship between multiple variables.
• Regression analysis: Study the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable.
• Frequency tables: To understand the frequency of data.
• Analysis of variance: To test the degree to which two or more variables differ in an experiment.

Qualitative research involves an inductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed after data collection. The methods include:

• Content analysis: For analyzing documented information from text and images by determining the presence of certain words or concepts in texts.
• Narrative analysis: For analyzing content obtained from sources such as interviews, field observations, and surveys. The stories and opinions shared by people are used to answer research questions.
• Discourse analysis: For analyzing interactions with people considering the social context, that is, the lifestyle and environment, under which the interaction occurs.
• Grounded theory: Involves hypothesis creation by data collection and analysis to explain why a phenomenon occurred.
• Thematic analysis: To identify important themes or patterns in data and use these to address an issue.

How to choose a research methodology?

Here are some important factors to consider when choosing a research methodology: 8

• Research objectives, aims, and questions —these would help structure the research design.
• Review existing literature to identify any gaps in knowledge.
• Check the statistical requirements —if data-driven or statistical results are needed then quantitative research is the best. If the research questions can be answered based on people’s opinions and perceptions, then qualitative research is most suitable.
• Sample size —sample size can often determine the feasibility of a research methodology. For a large sample, less effort- and time-intensive methods are appropriate.
• Constraints —constraints of time, geography, and resources can help define the appropriate methodology.

Got writer’s block? Kickstart your research paper writing with Paperpal now!

How to write a research methodology .

A research methodology should include the following components: 3,9

• Research design —should be selected based on the research question and the data required. Common research designs include experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, descriptive, and exploratory.
• Research method —this can be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method.
• Reason for selecting a specific methodology —explain why this methodology is the most suitable to answer your research problem.
• Research instruments —explain the research instruments you plan to use, mainly referring to the data collection methods such as interviews, surveys, etc. Here as well, a reason should be mentioned for selecting the particular instrument.
• Sampling —this involves selecting a representative subset of the population being studied.
• Data collection —involves gathering data using several data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, etc.
• Data analysis —describe the data analysis methods you will use once you’ve collected the data.
• Research limitations —mention any limitations you foresee while conducting your research.
• Validity and reliability —validity helps identify the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings; reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the results over time and across different conditions.
• Ethical considerations —research should be conducted ethically. The considerations include obtaining consent from participants, maintaining confidentiality, and addressing conflicts of interest.

Streamline Your Research Paper Writing Process with Paperpal

The methods section is a critical part of the research papers, allowing researchers to use this to understand your findings and replicate your work when pursuing their own research. However, it is usually also the most difficult section to write. This is where Paperpal can help you overcome the writer’s block and create the first draft in minutes with Paperpal Copilot, its secure generative AI feature suite.  

With Paperpal you can get research advice, write and refine your work, rephrase and verify the writing, and ensure submission readiness, all in one place. Here’s how you can use Paperpal to develop the first draft of your methods section.  

• Generate an outline: Input some details about your research to instantly generate an outline for your methods section 
• Develop the section: Use the outline and suggested sentence templates to expand your ideas and develop the first draft.  
• P araph ras e and trim : Get clear, concise academic text with paraphrasing that conveys your work effectively and word reduction to fix redundancies. 
• Choose the right words: Enhance text by choosing contextual synonyms based on how the words have been used in previously published work.  
• Check and verify text : Make sure the generated text showcases your methods correctly, has all the right citations, and is original and authentic. .   

You can repeat this process to develop each section of your research manuscript, including the title, abstract and keywords. Ready to write your research papers faster, better, and without the stress? Sign up for Paperpal and start writing today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What are the key components of research methodology?

A1. A good research methodology has the following key components:

• Research design
• Data collection procedures
• Data analysis methods
• Ethical considerations

Q2. Why is ethical consideration important in research methodology?

A2. Ethical consideration is important in research methodology to ensure the readers of the reliability and validity of the study. Researchers must clearly mention the ethical norms and standards followed during the conduct of the research and also mention if the research has been cleared by any institutional board. The following 10 points are the important principles related to ethical considerations: 10

• Participants should not be subjected to harm.
• Respect for the dignity of participants should be prioritized.
• Full consent should be obtained from participants before the study.
• Participants’ privacy should be ensured.
• Confidentiality of the research data should be ensured.
• Anonymity of individuals and organizations participating in the research should be maintained.
• The aims and objectives of the research should not be exaggerated.
• Affiliations, sources of funding, and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared.
• Communication in relation to the research should be honest and transparent.
• Misleading information and biased representation of primary data findings should be avoided.

Q3. What is the difference between methodology and method?

A3. Research methodology is different from a research method, although both terms are often confused. Research methods are the tools used to gather data, while the research methodology provides a framework for how research is planned, conducted, and analyzed. The latter guides researchers in making decisions about the most appropriate methods for their research. Research methods refer to the specific techniques, procedures, and tools used by researchers to collect, analyze, and interpret data, for instance surveys, questionnaires, interviews, etc.

Research methodology is, thus, an integral part of a research study. It helps ensure that you stay on track to meet your research objectives and answer your research questions using the most appropriate data collection and analysis tools based on your research design.

Accelerate your research paper writing with Paperpal. Try for free now!

• Research methodologies. Pfeiffer Library website. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://library.tiffin.edu/researchmethodologies/whatareresearchmethodologies
• Types of research methodology. Eduvoice website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://eduvoice.in/types-research-methodology/
• The basics of research methodology: A key to quality research. Voxco. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.voxco.com/blog/what-is-research-methodology/
• Sampling methods: Types with examples. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/types-of-sampling-for-social-research/
• What is qualitative research? Methods, types, approaches, examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-qualitative-research-methods-types-examples/
• What is quantitative research? Definition, methods, types, and examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-quantitative-research-types-and-examples/
• Data analysis in research: Types & methods. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/data-analysis-in-research/#Data_analysis_in_qualitative_research
• Factors to consider while choosing the right research methodology. PhD Monster website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.phdmonster.com/factors-to-consider-while-choosing-the-right-research-methodology/
• What is research methodology? Research and writing guides. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://paperpile.com/g/what-is-research-methodology/
• Ethical considerations. Business research methodology website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/ethical-considerations/

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Dangling Modifiers and How to Avoid Them in Your Writing 
• Webinar: How to Use Generative AI Tools Ethically in Your Academic Writing
• Research Outlines: How to Write An Introduction Section in Minutes with Paperpal Copilot
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

Language and Grammar Rules for Academic Writing

Climatic vs. climactic: difference and examples, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers....

• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2020

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

• Lawrence Mbuagbaw   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Daeria O. Lawson 1 ,
• Livia Puljak 4 ,
• David B. Allison 5 &
• Lehana Thabane 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  20 , Article number:  226 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

58 Citations

61 Altmetric

Metrics details

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Peer Review reports

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig.  1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

Comparing two groups

Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier

Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.

Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].

Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]

Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 ].

Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].

Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].

Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].

Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n  = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n  = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n  = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

What is the aim?

Methodological studies that investigate bias

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies that investigate quality (or completeness) of reporting

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that investigate the consistency of reporting

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

Methodological studies that investigate factors associated with reporting

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies that investigate methods

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Methodological studies that summarize other methodological studies

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Methodological studies that investigate nomenclature and terminology

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

Other types of methodological studies

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

What is the design?

Methodological studies that are descriptive

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Methodological studies that are analytical

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological studies that include the target population

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n  = 103) [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that include a sample of the target population

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

What is the unit of analysis?

Methodological studies with a research report as the unit of analysis

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Methodological studies with a design, analysis or reporting item as the unit of analysis

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Abbreviations

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Studies Within a Review

Studies Within a Trial

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, Krumholz HM, Ghersi D, van der Worp HB. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj. 2017;358:j4008.

Lawson DO, Leenus A, Mbuagbaw L. Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review. Pilot Feasibility Studies. 2020;6(1):13.

Puljak L, Makaric ZL, Buljan I, Pieper D. What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions. J Comp Eff Res. 2020.

Abbade LPF, Wang M, Sriganesh K, Jin Y, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L. The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: a systematic survey. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(5):892–900.

Gohari F, Baradaran HR, Tabatabaee M, Anijidani S, Mohammadpour Touserkani F, Atlasi R, Razmgir M. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015;15(1):36.

Wang M, Jin Y, Hu ZJ, Thabane A, Dennis B, Gajic-Veljanoski O, Paul J, Thabane L. The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: a systematic survey of the literature. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;8:1–10.

Shanthanna H, Kaushal A, Mbuagbaw L, Couban R, Busse J, Thabane L: A cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of pilot or feasibility trials in high-impact anesthesia journals Can J Anaesthesia 2018, 65(11):1180–1195.

Kosa SD, Mbuagbaw L, Borg Debono V, Bhandari M, Dennis BB, Ene G, Leenus A, Shi D, Thabane M, Valvasori S, et al. Agreement in reporting between trial publications and current clinical trial registry in high impact journals: a methodological review. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2018;65:144–50.

Zhang Y, Florez ID, Colunga Lozano LE, Aloweni FAB, Kennedy SA, Li A, Craigie S, Zhang S, Agarwal A, Lopes LC, et al. A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:57–66.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hernández AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J. 2006;151(2):257–64.

Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, Borg Debono V, Dillenburg R, Zhang S, Fruci V, Dennis B, Bawor M, Thabane L. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:169–88.

Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697–703.

Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta I, De Stio C, McCullagh LJ, Alonso-Coello P. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary-of-findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:7–18.

The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research: SWAT/SWAR Information [ https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/SWATSWARInformation/ ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Chick S, Sánchez P, Ferrin D, Morrice D. How to conduct a successful simulation study. In: Proceedings of the 2003 winter simulation conference: 2003; 2003. p. 66–70.

Google Scholar  

Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(3):485–8.

Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mount Sinai J Med New York. 1996;63(3–4):216–24.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Areia M, Soares M, Dinis-Ribeiro M. Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements? Endoscopy. 2010;42(2):138–47.

Knol M, Groenwold R, Grobbee D. P-values in baseline tables of randomised controlled trials are inappropriate but still common in high impact journals. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19(2):231–2.

Chen M, Cui J, Zhang AL, Sze DM, Xue CC, May BH. Adherence to CONSORT items in randomized controlled trials of integrative medicine for colorectal Cancer published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med. 2018;24(2):115–24.

Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178.

The Cochrane Methodology Register Issue 2 2009 [ https://cmr.cochrane.org/help.htm ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Mbuagbaw L, Kredo T, Welch V, Mursleen S, Ross S, Zani B, Motaze NV, Quinlan L. Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:66–72.

Barton S, Peckitt C, Sclafani F, Cunningham D, Chau I. The influence of industry sponsorship on the reporting of subgroup analyses within phase III randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(18):2732–9.

Setia MS. Methodology series module 5: sampling strategies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(5):505–9.

Wilson B, Burnett P, Moher D, Altman DG, Al-Shahi Salman R. Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: a systematic review. Eur Stroke J. 2018;3(4):337–46.

Kahale LA, Diab B, Brignardello-Petersen R, Agarwal A, Mustafa RA, Kwong J, Neumann I, Li L, Lopes LC, Briel M, et al. Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:14–23.

De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJPM, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered?: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors*. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(2):146–8.

Ohtake PJ, Childs JD. Why publish study protocols? Phys Ther. 2014;94(9):1208–9.

Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):57.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002;359(9302):248–52.

Porta M (ed.): A dictionary of epidemiology, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2008.

El Dib R, Tikkinen KAO, Akl EA, Gomaa HA, Mustafa RA, Agarwal A, Carpenter CR, Zhang Y, Jorge EC, Almeida R, et al. Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:61–9.

Helzer JE, Robins LN, Taibleson M, Woodruff RA Jr, Reich T, Wish ED. Reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. I. a methodological review. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(2):129–33.

Chung ST, Chacko SK, Sunehag AL, Haymond MW. Measurements of gluconeogenesis and Glycogenolysis: a methodological review. Diabetes. 2015;64(12):3996–4010.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513–24.

Moen EL, Fricano-Kugler CJ, Luikart BW, O’Malley AJ. Analyzing clustered data: why and how to account for multiple observations nested within a study participant? PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146721.

Zyzanski SJ, Flocke SA, Dickinson LM. On the nature and analysis of clustered data. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):199–200.

Mathes T, Klassen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):152.

Bui DDA, Del Fiol G, Hurdle JF, Jonnalagadda S. Extractive text summarization system to aid data extraction from full text in systematic review development. J Biomed Inform. 2016;64:265–72.

Bui DD, Del Fiol G, Jonnalagadda S. PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports. J Biomed Inform. 2016;61:141–8.

Maticic K, Krnic Martinic M, Puljak L. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):32.

Speich B. Blinding in surgical randomized clinical trials in 2015. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):21–2.

Abraha I, Cozzolino F, Orso M, Marchesi M, Germani A, Lombardo G, Eusebi P, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Iorio A, et al. A systematic review found that deviations from intention-to-treat are common in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:37–46.

Zhong Y, Zhou W, Jiang H, Fan T, Diao X, Yang H, Min J, Wang G, Fu J, Mao B. Quality of reporting of two-group parallel randomized controlled clinical trials of multi-herb formulae: A survey of reports indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Eur J Integrative Med. 2011;3(4):e309–16.

Farrokhyar F, Chu R, Whitlock R, Thabane L. A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials. Can J Surg. 2007;50(4):266–77.

Oltean H, Gagnier JJ. Use of clustering analysis in randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:17.

Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Pandis N. Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines? PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96407.

Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):663–7.

de Vries TW, van Roon EN. Low quality of reporting adverse drug reactions in paediatric randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(12):1023–6.

Borg Debono V, Zhang S, Ye C, Paul J, Arya A, Hurlburt L, Murthy Y, Thabane L. The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:13.

Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, Glasser SP, Thabane L, Chu R, Ambrale S, Dwary AD, Kumar A, Nayyar G, et al. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes. 2012;36(7):977–81.

Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes. 2008;32(10):1531–6.

Khan NR, Saad H, Oravec CS, Rossi N, Nguyen V, Venable GT, Lillard JC, Patel P, Taylor DR, Vaughn BN, et al. A review of industry funding in randomized controlled trials published in the neurosurgical literature-the elephant in the room. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):890–7.

Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hrobjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8:Mr000047.

Kiehna EN, Starke RM, Pouratian N, Dumont AS. Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(2):280–5.

Liu LQ, Morris PJ, Pengel LH. Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview. Transpl Int. 2013;26(3):300–6.

Bala MM, Akl EA, Sun X, Bassler D, Mertz D, Mejza F, Vandvik PO, Malaga G, Johnston BC, Dahm P, et al. Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(3):286–95.

Lee SY, Teoh PJ, Camm CF, Agha RA. Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(4):562–72.

Ziogas DC, Zintzaras E. Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19(7):494–500.

Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, Paul C. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1159–65.

Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, Borg Debono V, Kosa S, Zhang S, Ye C, Parpia S, Dennis BB, Thabane L. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemporary Clin trials. 2014;38(2):245–50.

Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, Douketis J. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes. 2007;31(10):1554–9.

Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evidence Based Med. 2017;22(4):139.

METRIC - MEthodological sTudy ReportIng Checklist: guidelines for reporting methodological studies in health research [ http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#METRIC ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Jager KJ, Zoccali C, MacLeod A, Dekker FW. Confounding: what it is and how to deal with it. Kidney Int. 2008;73(3):256–60.

Parker SG, Halligan S, Erotocritou M, Wood CPJ, Boulton RW, Plumb AAO, Windsor ACJ, Mallett S. A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed. Hernia. 2019.

Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1–12.

Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214.

Riado Minguez D, Kowalski M, Vallve Odena M, Longin Pontzen D, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M, Dosenovic S, Jakus D, Vrdoljak M, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews published in the highest ranking journals in the field of pain. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(4):1348–54.

Thabut G, Estellat C, Boutron I, Samama CM, Ravaud P. Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. Eur Heart J. 2005;27(2):227–36.

Puljak L, Riva N, Parmelli E, González-Lorenzo M, Moja L, Pieper D. Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:158–64.

Ritchie A, Seubert L, Clifford R, Perry D, Bond C. Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019.

Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, Proloscic I, Slapnicar E, Cavar J, Pericic TP, Pieper D, Puljak L. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019.

Tan A, Porcher R, Crequit P, Ravaud P, Dechartres A. Differences in treatment effect size between overall survival and progression-free survival in immunotherapy trials: a Meta-epidemiologic study of trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1686–94.

Croitoru D, Huang Y, Kurdina A, Chan AW, Drucker AM. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(6):1469–76.

Khan MS, Ochani RK, Shaikh A, Vaduganathan M, Khan SU, Fatima K, Yamani N, Mandrola J, Doukky R, Krasuski RA: Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2019.

Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J. 2005;19(7):673–80.

Mueller M, D’Addario M, Egger M, Cevallos M, Dekkers O, Mugglin C, Scott P. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):44.

Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):181.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203.

Analytical study [ https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/analytical+study ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):380–6 e381.

Schalken N, Rietbergen C. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1395.

Ranker LR, Petersen JM, Fox MP. Awareness of and potential for dependent error in the observational epidemiologic literature: A review. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;36:15–9 e12.

Paquette M, Alotaibi AM, Nieuwlaat R, Santesso N, Mbuagbaw L. A meta-epidemiological study of subgroup analyses in cochrane systematic reviews of atrial fibrillation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):241.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daeria O. Lawson & Lehana Thabane

Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw & Lehana Thabane

Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

David B. Allison

Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lehana Thabane

Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Mbuagbaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mbuagbaw, L., Lawson, D.O., Puljak, L. et al. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 226 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2020

Accepted : 27 August 2020

Published : 07 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

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

• Methodological study
• Meta-epidemiology
• Research methods
• Research-on-research

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

Research Methodology refers to the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research, investigate problems, and gather data and information for a specific purpose. It involves the techniques and procedures used to identify, collect , analyze , and interpret data to answer research questions or solve research problems . Moreover, They are philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process.

Structure of Research Methodology

Research methodology formats can vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project, but the following is a basic example of a structure for a research methodology section:

I. Introduction

• Provide an overview of the research problem and the need for a research methodology section
• Outline the main research questions and objectives

II. Research Design

• Explain the research design chosen and why it is appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Discuss any alternative research designs considered and why they were not chosen
• Describe the research setting and participants (if applicable)

III. Data Collection Methods

• Describe the methods used to collect data (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations)
• Explain how the data collection methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or instruments used for data collection

IV. Data Analysis Methods

• Describe the methods used to analyze the data (e.g., statistical analysis, content analysis )
• Explain how the data analysis methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or software used for data analysis

V. Ethical Considerations

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise from the research and how they were addressed
• Explain how informed consent was obtained (if applicable)
• Detail any measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity

VI. Limitations

• Identify any potential limitations of the research methodology and how they may impact the results and conclusions

VII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key aspects of the research methodology section
• Explain how the research methodology addresses the research question(s) and objectives

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. This type of research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Qualitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as words, images, and observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena, to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular topic, and to generate hypotheses.

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research. This approach can be particularly useful for studies that aim to explore complex phenomena and to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Case Study Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases. Case studies are often used in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to gain a detailed understanding of a particular individual or group.

Action Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves a collaborative process between researchers and practitioners to identify and solve real-world problems. Action research is often used in education, healthcare, and social work.

Experimental Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables to observe their effects on a dependent variable. Experimental research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Survey Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is often used to study attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the development of theories based on the data collected during the research process. Grounded theory is often used in sociology and anthropology to generate theories about social phenomena.

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

Research Methodology for Investigating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Symptoms of Depression in Adults

Introduction:

The aim of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. To achieve this objective, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach.

Research Design:

The study will follow a pre-test and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group receiving CBT and a control group receiving no intervention. The study will also include a qualitative component, in which semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to explore their experiences of receiving CBT.

Participants:

Participants will be recruited from community mental health clinics in the local area. The sample will consist of 100 adults aged 18-65 years old who meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.

Intervention :

The experimental group will receive 12 weekly sessions of CBT, each lasting 60 minutes. The intervention will be delivered by licensed mental health professionals who have been trained in CBT. The control group will receive no intervention during the study period.

Data Collection:

Quantitative data will be collected through the use of standardized measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants from the experimental group. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period, and will explore participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Ethical Considerations:

This study will comply with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Participants will provide informed consent before participating in the study, and their privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. Any adverse events or reactions will be reported and managed appropriately.

Data Management:

All data collected will be kept confidential and stored securely using password-protected databases. Identifying information will be removed from qualitative data transcripts to ensure participants’ anonymity.

Limitations:

One potential limitation of this study is that it only focuses on one type of psychotherapy, CBT, and may not generalize to other types of therapy or interventions. Another limitation is that the study will only include participants from community mental health clinics, which may not be representative of the general population.

Conclusion:

This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. By using a randomized controlled trial and a mixed-methods approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CBT and depression. The results of this study will have important implications for the development of effective treatments for depression in clinical settings.

How to Write Research Methodology

Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It’s an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings. Here are the steps to write a research methodology:

• Start by explaining your research question: Begin the methodology section by restating your research question and explaining why it’s important. This helps readers understand the purpose of your research and the rationale behind your methods.
• Describe your research design: Explain the overall approach you used to conduct research. This could be a qualitative or quantitative research design, experimental or non-experimental, case study or survey, etc. Discuss the advantages and limitations of the chosen design.
• Discuss your sample: Describe the participants or subjects you included in your study. Include details such as their demographics, sampling method, sample size, and any exclusion criteria used.
• Describe your data collection methods : Explain how you collected data from your participants. This could include surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires, or experiments. Include details on how you obtained informed consent, how you administered the tools, and how you minimized the risk of bias.
• Explain your data analysis techniques: Describe the methods you used to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, content analysis, thematic analysis, or discourse analysis. Explain how you dealt with missing data, outliers, and any other issues that arose during the analysis.
• Discuss the validity and reliability of your research : Explain how you ensured the validity and reliability of your study. This could include measures such as triangulation, member checking, peer review, or inter-coder reliability.
• Acknowledge any limitations of your research: Discuss any limitations of your study, including any potential threats to validity or generalizability. This helps readers understand the scope of your findings and how they might apply to other contexts.
• Provide a summary: End the methodology section by summarizing the methods and techniques you used to conduct your research. This provides a clear overview of your research methodology and helps readers understand the process you followed to arrive at your findings.

When to Write Research Methodology

Research methodology is typically written after the research proposal has been approved and before the actual research is conducted. It should be written prior to data collection and analysis, as it provides a clear roadmap for the research project.

The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.

The methodology should be written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be based on established research practices and standards. It is important to provide enough detail so that the reader can understand how the research was conducted and evaluate the validity of the results.

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

• To identify the research problem: Research methodology is used to identify the research problem, which is the first step in conducting any research.
• To design the research: Research methodology helps in designing the research by selecting the appropriate research method, research design, and sampling technique.
• To collect data: Research methodology provides a systematic approach to collect data from primary and secondary sources.
• To analyze data: Research methodology helps in analyzing the collected data using various statistical and non-statistical techniques.
• To test hypotheses: Research methodology provides a framework for testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data.
• To generalize findings: Research methodology helps in generalizing the findings of the research to the target population.
• To develop theories : Research methodology is used to develop new theories and modify existing theories based on the findings of the research.
• To evaluate programs and policies : Research methodology is used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies by collecting data and analyzing it.
• To improve decision-making: Research methodology helps in making informed decisions by providing reliable and valid data.

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

• To guide the research process: Research methodology provides a systematic framework for conducting research. It helps researchers to plan their research, define their research questions, and select appropriate methods and techniques for collecting and analyzing data.
• To ensure research quality: Research methodology helps researchers to ensure that their research is rigorous, reliable, and valid. It provides guidelines for minimizing bias and error in data collection and analysis, and for ensuring that research findings are accurate and trustworthy.
• To replicate research: Research methodology provides a clear and detailed account of the research process, making it possible for other researchers to replicate the study and verify its findings.
• To advance knowledge: Research methodology enables researchers to generate new knowledge and to contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. It provides a means for testing hypotheses, exploring new ideas, and discovering new insights.
• To inform decision-making: Research methodology provides evidence-based information that can inform policy and decision-making in a variety of fields, including medicine, public health, education, and business.

Advantages of Research Methodology

Research methodology has several advantages that make it a valuable tool for conducting research in various fields. Here are some of the key advantages of research methodology:

• Systematic and structured approach : Research methodology provides a systematic and structured approach to conducting research, which ensures that the research is conducted in a rigorous and comprehensive manner.
• Objectivity : Research methodology aims to ensure objectivity in the research process, which means that the research findings are based on evidence and not influenced by personal bias or subjective opinions.
• Replicability : Research methodology ensures that research can be replicated by other researchers, which is essential for validating research findings and ensuring their accuracy.
• Reliability : Research methodology aims to ensure that the research findings are reliable, which means that they are consistent and can be depended upon.
• Validity : Research methodology ensures that the research findings are valid, which means that they accurately reflect the research question or hypothesis being tested.
• Efficiency : Research methodology provides a structured and efficient way of conducting research, which helps to save time and resources.
• Flexibility : Research methodology allows researchers to choose the most appropriate research methods and techniques based on the research question, data availability, and other relevant factors.
• Scope for innovation: Research methodology provides scope for innovation and creativity in designing research studies and developing new research techniques.

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

APA Research Paper Format – Example, Sample and...

Thesis Outline – Example, Template and Writing...

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

Writing a research paper is both an art and a skill, and knowing how to write the methods section of a research paper is the first crucial step in mastering scientific writing. If, like the majority of early career researchers, you believe that the methods section is the simplest to write and needs little in the way of careful consideration or thought, this article will help you understand it is not 1 .

We have all probably asked our supervisors, coworkers, or search engines “ how to write a methods section of a research paper ” at some point in our scientific careers, so you are not alone if that’s how you ended up here.  Even for seasoned researchers, selecting what to include in the methods section from a wealth of experimental information can occasionally be a source of distress and perplexity.   

Additionally, journal specifications, in some cases, may make it more of a requirement rather than a choice to provide a selective yet descriptive account of the experimental procedure. Hence, knowing these nuances of how to write the methods section of a research paper is critical to its success. The methods section of the research paper is not supposed to be a detailed heavy, dull section that some researchers tend to write; rather, it should be the central component of the study that justifies the validity and reliability of the research.

Are you still unsure of how the methods section of a research paper forms the basis of every investigation? Consider the last article you read but ignore the methods section and concentrate on the other parts of the paper . Now think whether you could repeat the study and be sure of the credibility of the findings despite knowing the literature review and even having the data in front of you. You have the answer!   

Having established the importance of the methods section , the next question is how to write the methods section of a research paper that unifies the overall study. The purpose of the methods section , which was earlier called as Materials and Methods , is to describe how the authors went about answering the “research question” at hand. Here, the objective is to tell a coherent story that gives a detailed account of how the study was conducted, the rationale behind specific experimental procedures, the experimental setup, objects (variables) involved, the research protocol employed, tools utilized to measure, calculations and measurements, and the analysis of the collected data 2 .

In this article, we will take a deep dive into this topic and provide a detailed overview of how to write the methods section of a research paper . For the sake of clarity, we have separated the subject into various sections with corresponding subheadings.  

Table of Contents

What is the methods section of a research paper ?  

The methods section is a fundamental section of any paper since it typically discusses the ‘ what ’, ‘ how ’, ‘ which ’, and ‘ why ’ of the study, which is necessary to arrive at the final conclusions. In a research article, the introduction, which serves to set the foundation for comprehending the background and results is usually followed by the methods section, which precedes the result and discussion sections. The methods section must explicitly state what was done, how it was done, which equipment, tools and techniques were utilized, how were the measurements/calculations taken, and why specific research protocols, software, and analytical methods were employed.  

Why is the methods section important?  

The primary goal of the methods section is to provide pertinent details about the experimental approach so that the reader may put the results in perspective and, if necessary, replicate the findings 3 .  This section offers readers the chance to evaluate the reliability and validity of any study. In short, it also serves as the study’s blueprint, assisting researchers who might be unsure about any other portion in establishing the study’s context and validity. The methods plays a rather crucial role in determining the fate of the article; an incomplete and unreliable methods section can frequently result in early rejections and may lead to numerous rounds of modifications during the publication process. This means that the reviewers also often use methods section to assess the reliability and validity of the research protocol and the data analysis employed to address the research topic. In other words, the purpose of the methods section is to demonstrate the research acumen and subject-matter expertise of the author(s) in their field.  

Structure of methods section of a research paper  

Similar to the research paper, the methods section also follows a defined structure; this may be dictated by the guidelines of a specific journal or can be presented in a chronological or thematic manner based on the study type. When writing the methods section , authors should keep in mind that they are telling a story about how the research was conducted. They should only report relevant information to avoid confusing the reader and include details that would aid in connecting various aspects of the entire research activity together. It is generally advisable to present experiments in the order in which they were conducted. This facilitates the logical flow of the research and allows readers to follow the progression of the study design.   

It is also essential to clearly state the rationale behind each experiment and how the findings of earlier experiments informed the design or interpretation of later experiments. This allows the readers to understand the overall purpose of the study design and the significance of each experiment within that context. However, depending on the particular research question and method, it may make sense to present information in a different order; therefore, authors must select the best structure and strategy for their individual studies.   

In cases where there is a lot of information, divide the sections into subheadings to cover the pertinent details. If the journal guidelines pose restrictions on the word limit , additional important information can be supplied in the supplementary files. A simple rule of thumb for sectioning the method section is to begin by explaining the methodological approach ( what was done ), describing the data collection methods ( how it was done ), providing the analysis method ( how the data was analyzed ), and explaining the rationale for choosing the methodological strategy. This is described in detail in the upcoming sections.    

How to write the methods section of a research paper  

Contrary to widespread assumption, the methods section of a research paper should be prepared once the study is complete to prevent missing any key parameter. Hence, please make sure that all relevant experiments are done before you start writing a methods section . The next step for authors is to look up any applicable academic style manuals or journal-specific standards to ensure that the methods section is formatted correctly. The methods section of a research paper typically constitutes materials and methods; while writing this section, authors usually arrange the information under each category.

The materials category describes the samples, materials, treatments, and instruments, while experimental design, sample preparation, data collection, and data analysis are a part of the method category. According to the nature of the study, authors should include additional subsections within the methods section, such as ethical considerations like the declaration of Helsinki (for studies involving human subjects), demographic information of the participants, and any other crucial information that can affect the output of the study. Simply put, the methods section has two major components: content and format. Here is an easy checklist for you to consider if you are struggling with how to write the methods section of a research paper .   

• Explain the research design, subjects, and sample details  
• Include information on inclusion and exclusion criteria  
• Mention ethical or any other permission required for the study  
• Include information about materials, experimental setup, tools, and software  
• Add details of data collection and analysis methods  
• Incorporate how research biases were avoided or confounding variables were controlled  
• Evaluate and justify the experimental procedure selected to address the research question  
• Provide precise and clear details of each experiment  
• Flowcharts, infographics, or tables can be used to present complex information     
• Use past tense to show that the experiments have been done   
• Follow academic style guides (such as APA or MLA ) to structure the content  
• Citations should be included as per standard protocols in the field  

Now that you know how to write the methods section of a research paper , let’s address another challenge researchers face while writing the methods section —what to include in the methods section .  How much information is too much is not always obvious when it comes to trying to include data in the methods section of a paper. In the next section, we examine this issue and explore potential solutions.   

What to include in the methods section of a research paper  

The technical nature of the methods section occasionally makes it harder to present the information clearly and concisely while staying within the study context. Many young researchers tend to veer off subject significantly, and they frequently commit the sin of becoming bogged down in itty bitty details, making the text harder to read and impairing its overall flow. However, the best way to write the methods section is to start with crucial components of the experiments. If you have trouble deciding which elements are essential, think about leaving out those that would make it more challenging to comprehend the context or replicate the results. The top-down approach helps to ensure all relevant information is incorporated and vital information is not lost in technicalities. Next, remember to add details that are significant to assess the validity and reliability of the study. Here is a simple checklist for you to follow ( bonus tip: you can also make a checklist for your own study to avoid missing any critical information while writing the methods section ).  

• Structuring the methods section : Authors should diligently follow journal guidelines and adhere to the specific author instructions provided when writing the methods section . Journals typically have specific guidelines for formatting the methods section ; for example, Frontiers in Plant Sciences advises arranging the materials and methods section by subheading and citing relevant literature. There are several standardized checklists available for different study types in the biomedical field, including CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized clinical trials, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) for cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies. Before starting the methods section , check the checklist available in your field that can function as a guide.     
• Organizing different sections to tell a story : Once you are sure of the format required for structuring the methods section , the next is to present the sections in a logical manner; as mentioned earlier, the sections can be organized according to the chronology or themes. In the chronological arrangement, you should discuss the methods in accordance with how the experiments were carried out. An example of the method section of a research paper of an animal study should first ideally include information about the species, weight, sex, strain, and age. Next, the number of animals, their initial conditions, and their living and housing conditions should also be mentioned. Second, how the groups are assigned and the intervention (drug treatment, stress, or other) given to each group, and finally, the details of tools and techniques used to measure, collect, and analyze the data. Experiments involving animal or human subjects should additionally state an ethics approval statement. It is best to arrange the section using the thematic approach when discussing distinct experiments not following a sequential order.  
• Define and explain the objects and procedure: Experimental procedure should clearly be stated in the methods section . Samples, necessary preparations (samples, treatment, and drug), and methods for manipulation need to be included. All variables (control, dependent, independent, and confounding) must be clearly defined, particularly if the confounding variables can affect the outcome of the study.  
• Match the order of the methods section with the order of results: Though not mandatory, organizing the manuscript in a logical and coherent manner can improve the readability and clarity of the paper. This can be done by following a consistent structure throughout the manuscript; readers can easily navigate through the different sections and understand the methods and results in relation to each other. Using experiment names as headings for both the methods and results sections can also make it simpler for readers to locate specific information and corroborate it if needed.   
• Relevant information must always be included: The methods section should have information on all experiments conducted and their details clearly mentioned. Ask the journal whether there is a way to offer more information in the supplemental files or external repositories if your target journal has strict word limitations. For example, Nature communications encourages authors to deposit their step-by-step protocols in an open-resource depository, Protocol Exchange which allows the protocols to be linked with the manuscript upon publication. Providing access to detailed protocols also helps to increase the transparency and reproducibility of the research.  
• It’s all in the details: The methods section should meticulously list all the materials, tools, instruments, and software used for different experiments. Specify the testing equipment on which data was obtained, together with its manufacturer’s information, location, city, and state or any other stimuli used to manipulate the variables. Provide specifics on the research process you employed; if it was a standard protocol, cite previous studies that also used the protocol.  Include any protocol modifications that were made, as well as any other factors that were taken into account when planning the study or gathering data. Any new or modified techniques should be explained by the authors. Typically, readers evaluate the reliability and validity of the procedures using the cited literature, and a widely accepted checklist helps to support the credibility of the methodology. Note: Authors should include a statement on sample size estimation (if applicable), which is often missed. It enables the reader to determine how many subjects will be required to detect the expected change in the outcome variables within a given confidence interval.  
• Write for the audience: While explaining the details in the methods section , authors should be mindful of their target audience, as some of the rationale or assumptions on which specific procedures are based might not always be obvious to the audience, particularly for a general audience. Therefore, when in doubt, the objective of a procedure should be specified either in relation to the research question or to the entire protocol.  
• Data interpretation and analysis : Information on data processing, statistical testing, levels of significance, and analysis tools and software should be added. Mention if the recommendations and expertise of an experienced statistician were followed. Also, evaluate and justify the preferred statistical method used in the study and its significance.  

What NOT to include in the methods section of a research paper  

To address “ how to write the methods section of a research paper ”, authors should not only pay careful attention to what to include but also what not to include in the methods section of a research paper . Here is a list of do not’s when writing the methods section :  

• Do not elaborate on specifics of standard methods/procedures: You should refrain from adding unnecessary details of experiments and practices that are well established and cited previously.  Instead, simply cite relevant literature or mention if the manufacturer’s protocol was followed.  
• Do not add unnecessary details : Do not include minute details of the experimental procedure and materials/instruments used that are not significant for the outcome of the experiment. For example, there is no need to mention the brand name of the water bath used for incubation.    
• Do not discuss the results: The methods section is not to discuss the results or refer to the tables and figures; save it for the results and discussion section. Also, focus on the methods selected to conduct the study and avoid diverting to other methods or commenting on their pros or cons.  
• Do not make the section bulky : For extensive methods and protocols, provide the essential details and share the rest of the information in the supplemental files. The writing should be clear yet concise to maintain the flow of the section.  

We hope that by this point, you understand how crucial it is to write a thoughtful and precise methods section and the ins and outs of how to write the methods section of a research paper . To restate, the entire purpose of the methods section is to enable others to reproduce the results or verify the research. We sincerely hope that this post has cleared up any confusion and given you a fresh perspective on the methods section .

As a parting gift, we’re leaving you with a handy checklist that will help you understand how to write the methods section of a research paper . Feel free to download this checklist and use or share this with those who you think may benefit from it.  

References  

• Bhattacharya, D. How to write the Methods section of a research paper. Editage Insights, 2018. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-methods-section-of-a-research-paper (2018).
• Kallet, R. H. How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care 49, 1229–1232 (2004). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15447808/
• Grindstaff, T. L. & Saliba, S. A. AVOIDING MANUSCRIPT MISTAKES. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7, 518–524 (2012). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474299/

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

• How it works

Research Methodology

The research methodology is a part of your research paper that describes your research process in detail. It would help if you always tried to make the section of the research methodology enjoyable.

As you describe the procedure that has already been completed, you need to write it in the past tense.

Your research methodology should explain:

What was the purpose of your research?

What type of research method is used?

What were the data collecting methods?

How did you analyze the data?

What kind of resources has been used in your research?

Why did you choose these methods?

How to Write a Research Methodology?

Start writing your research methodology with the research problem giving a clear picture of your study’s purpose. It’ll help your readers focus on the research objectives and understand the remaining procedure of your research.

You should explain:

What type of research have you conducted?

The types of research can be categorized from the following perspectives;

Application of the study

Aim of the research

Mode of inquiry

Research approach

While talking about the research methods, you should highlight the key points, such as:

• The objective of choosing a specific research method.
• Is the purpose of the study fulfilled?
• The criteria of validity and reliability
• Did you meet the ethical considerations?

What kind of data gathering methods you’ve used in your research?

There are three types of data collecting methods such as:

Qualitative Method

Qualitative research is based on quality, and it looks in-depth at non-numerical data. It enables us to understand the comprehensive details of the problem. The researcher prepares open-ended questions to gather as much information as possible.

Quantitative Method

The quantitative research is associated with the aspects of measurement, quantity, and extent. It follows the statistical, mathematical, and computational techniques in numerical data such as percentages and statistics. The research is conducted on a large group of population.

Mixed Methods

When you combine quantitative and qualitative methods of research, the resulting approach becomes mixed methods of research.

Example: In quantitative correlation research , you aim to identify the cause-and-effect relationship between two or more variables. It would help if you also focused on explaining the difference between correlation and causation.

Example: In a qualitative research case study , your research’s focus is to find answers to how and why questions. You need to collect data collection from multiple sources over time. You need to analyse real-world problems in-depth, then you can use the method of the case study.

Describe the Research Methods

After explaining the research method you have used, you should describe the data collection methods you used. Mention the procedure and materials you used in your research.

Qualitative Methods

Interview/Focus Group Discussion

Describe the details and criteria of the interviews and. You should include the following points:

The type of questionnaire you have used in your interview.

The procedure for selecting participants.

The size of your sample (number of participation)

The duration and location of interviews.

Observation

Describe the procedure of your observation and include the following points:

Who were the participants of your observation?

How did you get access to that specific group?

How did you record the data? (written form, audio or video recording)

Archival Data

Here you have to describe the existing data you’ve’ used. You should explain:

What type of resources have you used? (texts, images, audio, videos)

• How did you get access to them?

To seek in-depth information about the stress level among men and women, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten men and ten women of company X. The participants were aged between 20-40. The interviews were held in the canteen to create a stress-free environment that lasted 15 minutes each. The responses were written and filmed.

Quantitative Methods

Describe the entire procedure of your survey. Include the following points:

What type of survey have you conducted? (Questionnaire/interview/ rating scale/ Online Survey)

Who were the participants of your survey? How did you select them?

What was the sample size ?

What type of questions you’ve used in your survey? (open-ended/closed-ended)

How many questions have you used?

What was the response rate of the participants?

Experiments

Explain the detailed procedure you have followed in your experiment. Try to provide as much information you can provide. Include the following points:

The type of your experimental design .

Sampling method you’ve used to select subjects.

Tools and techniques used in the experiment.

The way you identified a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables.

Describe the existing data you’ve used in your research. Include the following points:

• What type of resources have you used? (journals, newspapers, books, online content)
• Who is the author of the source?
• Who published it? When?

The survey included ten multiple-choice questions and ten open-ended questions. The survey’s objective is to determine the stress level of working women who have to deal with household responsibilities. From 17-20 Jan 2018, between 11:00 to 13:00, the survey questionnaire was distributed among the women at the working counters. The participants were given 10 minutes to fill the questionnaire. Out of 500 participants, 450 responded, and 350 were included in the analysis.

Describe Methods of Data Analysis

In this section, you should briefly describe the methods you’ve used to analyse the data you’ve collected.

The qualitative method includes analysing language, images, audio, videos, or any textual data (textual analysis). The following types of methods are used in textual analysis .

Discourse analysis : Discourse analysis is an essential aspect of studying a language and its uses in day-to-day life.

Content analysis : It is a method of studying and retrieving meaningful information from documents

Thematic analysis: It’s a method of identifying patterns of themes in the collected information, such as face-to-face interviews, texts, and transcripts.

Example: After collecting the data, it was checked thoroughly to find the missing information. The interviews were transcribed, and textual analysis was conducted. The repetitions of the text, types of colours displayed, the tone of the speakers was measured.

Quantitative data analysis is used for analysing numerical data. Include the following points:

The methods of preparing data before analysing it.

Which statistical test you have used? (one-ended test, two-ended test)

The type of software you’ve used.

After collecting the data, it was checked thoroughly to find out the missing information. The coding system was used to interpret the data.

Provide Background and Justification

Many research methods are available, from standard to an averaged approach based on the requirements and abilities. In the research methodology section, it’s essential to mention the reasons behind selecting a specific research method.

You should also explain why you did not choose any other standard approach to your topic when it fits your requirements. Talk about your research objectives and highlight the points that could affect your research procedure if you select another research method.

You can discuss the limitations of other research methods compared to your research requirements and the method you’ve used.

Ethnographic research requires a lot of time, and one has to struggle a lot to gain access to the community. A researcher has to spend time with the target group in their natural environment. Sometimes, it’s difficult for a researcher to introduce himself as a researcher/participant with the community.

The online survey does not provide reliable responses. The only benefit of conducting an online survey would be its quick response rate and cost-effectiveness.

Points to Remember while Writing Methodology

While writing your methodology, you need to keep in mind that you don’t need to make it complicated with unnecessary details.

The aim of your writing a research methodology is not merely discussing the methods and techniques you’ve used.

You have to provide a detailed account of the procedure you’ve followed, the obstacles you faced, and the way you overcome them.

Your research question and objectives of the research are the base of your research. You should discuss the objectives and explain how this specific method helped you answer your research question. You can use goals and outcomes as evidence to support your discussion.

If you’ve used any standard method in your research, you don’t need to provide many details about it as it would be common in your field. However, if you’ve used any specific approach rarely used in your field, you should explain it in detail. Your explanation and information can help other researchers in their research.

Your methodology should be well-structured and easy to understand, with all the necessary information, evidence to support your argument.

After gathering the data, it’s essential to credit the sources you have used in your research. Mention the resources you’ve used, the way you got access to those resources. Use any suitable referencing style to cite sources such as APA, MLA, and Chicago, etc.

All Articles in this Category

Research methods for dissertation – types with comparison, qualitative vs quantitative research – a comprehensive guide, types of variables – a comprehensive guide, a complete guide to experimental research, ethnographic research – complete guide with examples, a quick guide to case study with examples, discourse analysis – a definitive guide with steps & types, action research for my dissertation – the do’s and the don’ts, methods of data collection – guide with tips, inductive and deductive reasoning – examples & limitations, hypothesis testing – a complete guide with examples, correlational research – steps & examples, how to conduct surveys – guide with examples, a quick guide to textual analysis – definition & steps, thematic analysis – a guide with examples, historical research – a guide based on its uses & steps, types of research – tips and examples, reliability and validity – definitions, types & examples, sampling methods – a guide with examples, a quick guide to descriptive research, tips to transcribe an interview – a guide with tips & examples, what is content analysis – steps & examples, primary vs secondary research – a guide with examples, what are confounding variables, advantages of secondary research – a definitive guide, disadvantages of secondary research – a definitive guide, advantages of primary research – types & advantages, disadvantages of primary research, meta-analysis – guide with definition, steps & examples, qualitative research questionnaire – types & examples, quantitative research questionnaire – types & examples, popular articles in this category.

The methodology is perhaps the most challenging and laborious part of research work. Here is a guide on how to write the methodology chapter for the dissertation!

Struggling to figure out “whether I should choose primary research or secondary research in my dissertation?” Here are some tips to help you decide.

The authenticity of the dissertation is largely influenced by the research method employed. Here we present the most notable research methods for dissertation.

Dissertation & Essay Writing Services At UK's Best Prices

Research prospect, dissertation topics & outline, dissertation proposal writing, dissertation writing, dissertation statistical analysis, our research methodology service features, expert writers.

Your research methodology should accurately describe the things you carried out. We have outrageously clever Ph.D. writers who actually love doing this! Take their help, get a better grade.

Precision and Clarity

When writing about complex processes within your research methodology, the text can become hard to follow. Let us do this part; we excel at clear and precise writing in this area.

Free Topic Suggestion

Do you still need to settle on a research title? Your assigned writer can provide several free topic suggestions relevant to your study. It allows you to choose a topic in accordance with your academic interests.

Well Researched

We’ll look in detail at your research to write the methodology accurately, error-free, and in accordance with your requirements.

High-level Encryption

Client information is securely stored and never shared. It’s a matter of common decency (and policy, of course). We receive orders, then before assigning a writer, strip away all client information.

Timely Delivery

We can write your research methodology and deliver it to you before your deadline. Many can’t, but we can. And we promise to never miss the deadline, no matter how close it is.

Loved by over 100,000 students

Thousands of students have used Research Prospect academic support services to improve their grades. Why are you waiting?

FAQs about Research Methodology Service

Ask our team.

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you!

[email protected]

Start Live chat

How many different topics will ResearchProspect offer?

We’ll start by sending you five within 24-48 hours. However, until you settle on a topic that really hits the spot, the assigned writer will continue to send you more to consider.

What guarantees do I get?

Our guarantees:

• Prompt delivery
• Zero plagiarism
• Fair prices
• Thorough quality control
• 100% confidentiality
• Work written by qualified UK writers
• Customisation to your requirements
• Free amendments
• Work never resold

Who writes the orders at ResearchProspect?

We have a team of hand-picked writers. They are rigorously tested to affirm their qualifications and writing skills. There’s no way around it – writers have to be qualified in specific subjects in order to write about them. This applies to academic levels too; a master’s level dissertation requires a writer who at least has a master’s degree.

Can you deliver work at weekends?

Yes, weekends are also delivery days. The only days we do not deliver are Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year’s Eve.

What are the features of your research methodology service?

Our research methodology writing service is aimed at helping undergraduate, master’s, and Ph.D. students produce a coherent and logical research methodology. We promise to fulful the following with this service:

• The assigned writer for your methodology will have matching qualifications and expertise.
• When your methodology is completed, it will be measured against our strict quality control procedures and academic standards.
• You are entitled to unlimited free amendments until you are completely satisfied with the work delivered. Our writers understand that clients have their own ideas and they’re happy to oblige any changes.
• Completed work comes with a plagiarism report proving that your work is 100% original. We guarantee uniqueness in the writing, or you get your money back.

What happens when you receive your research methodology?

After receiving your research methodology from us, you should check it through carefully in case you require any amendments. You should do this quickly in order to reduce time pressure on your deadline. When all is satisfactory, you can insert it into your dissertation and present it where needed.

Do you provide other dissertation help?

Yes, we do. We provide suggestions for topics if you’re stuck. We have a dissertation proposal writing service to help you get your project up and running. There is also our dissertation part writing service. This is for when you have trouble with one part only; sometimes the words just won’t come. And of course, there’s the service on this page, research methodology writing. Take a look through the dissertation samples we’ve published to get a taste of what we can produce.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information
• Literature Review
• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary

Methodology

• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The methodology section or methods section tells you how the author(s) went about doing their research. It should let you know a) what method they used to gather data (survey, interviews, experiments, etc.), why they chose this method, and what the limitations are to this method.

The methodology section should be detailed enough that another researcher could replicate the study described. When you read the methodology or methods section:

• What kind of research method did the authors use? Is it an appropriate method for the type of study they are conducting?
• How did the authors get their tests subjects? What criteria did they use?
• What are the contexts of the study that may have affected the results (e.g. environmental conditions, lab conditions, timing questions, etc.)
• Is the sample size representative of the larger population (i.e., was it big enough?)
• Are the data collection instruments and procedures likely to have measured all the important characteristics with reasonable accuracy?
• Does the data analysis appear to have been done with care, and were appropriate analytical techniques used? 

A good researcher will always let you know about the limitations of his or her research.

• << Previous: Specialized Vocabulary
• Next: Results >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

Research Methods | Definitions, Types, Examples

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

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

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

Second, decide how you will analyze the data .

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

Table of contents

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

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

Qualitative vs. quantitative data

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

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

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

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

Primary vs. secondary research

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

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

Descriptive vs. experimental data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative analysis methods

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

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

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

Quantitative analysis methods

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

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

• During an experiment .
• Using probability sampling methods .

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this article helpful?

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

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

More interesting articles

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

Get unlimited documents corrected

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

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How to read a paper:...

How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers

• Related content
• Peer review
• Trisha Greenhalgh ([email protected]) , senior lecturer a
• a Unit for Evidence-Based Practice and Policy, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London Medical School/Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Whittington Hospital, London N19 5NF
• Correspondence to

Introduction

Before changing your practice in the light of a published research paper, you should decide whether the methods used were valid. This article considers five essential questions that should form the basis of your decision.

Question 1: Was the study original?

Only a tiny proportion of medical research breaks entirely new ground, and an equally tiny proportion repeats exactly the steps of previous workers. The vast majority of research studies will tell us, at best, that a particular hypothesis is slightly more or less likely to be correct than it was before we added our piece to the wider jigsaw. Hence, it may be perfectly valid to do a study which is, on the face of it, “unoriginal.” Indeed, the whole science of meta-analysis depends on the literature containing more than one study that has addressed a question in much the same way.

The practical question to ask, then, about a new piece of research is not “Has anyone ever done a similar study?” but “Does this new research add to the literature in any way?” For example:

Is this study bigger, continued for longer, or otherwise more substantial than the previous one(s)?

Is the methodology of this study any more rigorous (in particular, does it address any specific methodological criticisms of previous studies)?

Will the numerical results of this study add significantly to a meta-analysis of previous studies?

Is the population that was studied different in any way (has the study looked at different ages, sex, or ethnic groups than previous studies)?

Is the clinical issue addressed of sufficient importance, and is there sufficient doubt in the minds of the public or key decision makers, to make new evidence “politically” desirable even when it is not strictly scientifically necessary?

Question 2: Whom is the study about?

Before assuming that the results of a paper are applicable to your own practice, ask yourself …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

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

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Methodology and Criteria for the Evaluation of Paper Conservation Interventions: A Literature Review

• Spiros Zervos and Antonia Moropoulou

In this paper, we present the results of a literature survey concerning the methodology and criteria used for the evaluation of paper conservation interventions. Important issues that are reviewed include:

Accelerated ageing: theoretical principles, most common methods, standards and conditions (temperature and relative humidity).

Experimental setup: sample selection and preparation, planning of the experiments.

Methods for the evaluation of paper properties: established methods already in use, various methods that have been sparingly used and methods that have never been used but have the potential to evolve and apply to specific problems of the evaluation.

Criteria of effectiveness of the intervention.

A selection of the most important relevant publications of the last 30 years and the methods yielded by the survey are presented in table format.

Dans cette étude nous présentons les résultats d'une enquête de la littérature relative à la méthodologie et aux critères utilisés pour l'évaluation des interventions faites dans la conservation du papier. Les points importants à discuter comprennent:

Le vieillissement accéléré: principes théoriques, les méthodes les plus communément utilisées, les normes et les conditions (température et humidité relative).

La planification de la recherche: choix des échantillons et préparation, planification des expériences.

Les méthodes de mesure des propriétés des échantillons: méthodes bien établies déjà utilisées, différentes méthodes qui ont été rarement utilisées et d'autres qui n'ont encore jamais été utilisées mais qui présentent un potentiel pour servir à la recherche dans les problèmes spécifiques de l'évaluation.

Les critères pour évaluer l'efficacité des mesures de conservation. Les objectifs et les méthodes des publications les plus importantes des 30 dernières années sont joints en annexe sous forme de tableau.

Es werden die Ergebnisse einer Literaturrecherche nach Methodologie und Kriterien vorgestellt, die in der Forschung zur Papierkonservierung Verwendung finden. Zu den wichtigen Gesichtspunkten, über die berichtet wird, gehören:

Beschleunigte Alterung: theoretische Grundlagen, meistbenutzte Methoden, Normen und Belastung (Temperatur und relative Feuchte).

Forschungsplanung: Auswahl und Vorbereitung der Probestücke, Planung der Versuche.

Methoden zur Messung der Eigenschaften der Proben: allgemein eingeführte, selten benutzte Methoden und solche, die bisher nicht benutzt wurden, aber die Möglichkeit zur Erforschung spezieller Probleme bieten.

Kriterien zur Beurteilung der Effektivität von konservatorischen Maßnahmen.

Im Anhang sind Ziele und Methoden der wichtigsten Veröffentlichungen der letzten 30 Jahre in Tabellenform zusammengestellt.

© 2006 K. G. Saur Verlag, Ortlerstr. 8, D-81373 München

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• Open access
• Published: 23 August 2024

The role of emotions in academic performance of undergraduate medical students: a narrative review

• Nora Alshareef 1 , 2 ,
• Ian Fletcher 2 &
• Sabir Giga 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  907 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

225 Accesses

Metrics details

This paper is devoted to a narrative review of the literature on emotions and academic performance in medicine. The review aims to examine the role emotions play in the academic performance of undergraduate medical students.

Eight electronic databases were used to search the literature from 2013 to 2023, including Academic Search Ultimate, British Education Index, CINAHL, Education Abstract, ERIC, Medline, APA Psych Articles and APA Psych Info. Using specific keywords and terms in the databases, 3,285,208 articles were found. After applying the predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria to include only medical students and academic performance as an outcome, 45 articles remained, and two reviewers assessed the quality of the retrieved literature; 17 articles were selected for the narrative synthesis.

The findings indicate that depression and anxiety are the most frequently reported variables in the reviewed literature, and they have negative and positive impacts on the academic performance of medical students. The included literature also reported that a high number of medical students experienced test anxiety during their study, which affected their academic performance. Positive emotions lead to positive academic outcomes and vice versa. However, Feelings of shame did not have any effect on the academic performance of medical students.

The review suggests a significant relationship between emotions and academic performance among undergraduate medical students. While the evidence may not establish causation, it underscores the importance of considering emotional factors in understanding student performance. However, reliance on cross-sectional studies and self-reported data may introduce recall bias. Future research should concentrate on developing anxiety reduction strategies and enhancing mental well-being to improve academic performance.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Studying medicine is a multi-dimensional process involving acquiring medical knowledge, clinical skills, and professional attitudes. Previous research has found that emotions play a significant role in this process [ 1 , 2 ]. Different types of emotions are important in an academic context, influencing performance on assessments and evaluations, reception of feedback, exam scores, and overall satisfaction with the learning experience [ 3 ]. In particular, medical students experience a wide range of emotions due to many emotionally challenging situations, such as experiencing a heavy academic workload, being in the highly competitive field of medicine, retaining a large amount of information, keeping track of a busy schedule, taking difficult exams, and dealing with a fear of failure [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].Especially during their clinical years, medical students may experience anxiety when interacting with patients who are suffering, ill, or dying, and they must work with other healthcare professionals. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the impact of emotions on medical students to improve their academic outcomes [ 7 ].

To distinguish the emotions frequently experienced by medical students, it is essential to define them. Depression is defined by enduring emotions of sadness, despair, and a diminished capacity for enjoyment or engagement in almost all activities [ 4 ]. Negative emotions encompass unpleasant feelings such as anger, fear, sadness, and anxiety, and they frequently cause distress [ 8 ]. Anxiety is a general term that refers to a state of heightened nervousness or worry, which can be triggered by various factors. Test anxiety, on the other hand, is a specific type of anxiety that arises in the context of taking exams or assessments. Test anxiety is characterised by physiological arousal, negative self-perception, and a fear of failure, which can significantly impair a student’s ability to perform well academically [ 9 , 10 ]. Shame is a self-conscious emotion that arises from the perception of having failed to meet personal or societal standards. It can lead to feelings of worthlessness and inadequacy, severely impacting a student’s motivation and academic performance [ 11 , 12 ]. In contrast, positive emotions indicate a state of enjoyable involvement with the surroundings, encompassing feelings of happiness, appreciation, satisfaction, and love [ 8 ].

Academic performance generally refers to the outcomes of a student’s learning activities, often measured through grades, scores, and other formal assessments. Academic achievement encompasses a broader range of accomplishments, including mastery of skills, attainment of knowledge, and the application of learning in practical contexts. While academic performance is often quantifiable, academic achievement includes qualitative aspects of a student’s educational journey [ 13 ].

According to the literature, 11–40% of medical students suffer from stress, depression, and anxiety due to the intensity of medical school, and these negative emotions impact their academic achievement [ 14 , 15 ]. Severe anxiety may impair memory function, decrease concentration, lead to a state of hypervigilance, and interfere with judgment and cognitive function, further affecting academic performance [ 16 ]. However, some studies have suggested that experiencing some level of anxiety has a positive effect and serves as motivation that can improve academic performance [ 16 , 17 ].

Despite the importance of medical students’ emotions and their relation to academic performance, few studies have been conducted in this area. Most of these studies have focused on the prevalence of specific emotions without correlating with medical students’ academic performance. Few systematic reviews have addressed the emotional challenges medical students face. However, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews that discuss the role of emotions and academic outcomes. Therefore, this review aims to fill this gap by exploring the relationship between emotions and the academic performance of medical students.

Aim of the study

This review aims to examine the role emotions play in the academic performance of undergraduate medical students.

A systematic literature search examined the role of emotions in medical students’ academic performance. The search adhered to the concepts of a systematic review, following the criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [ 18 ]. Then, narrative synthesise was done to analyse the retrieved literature and synthesise the results. A systematic literature search and narrative review provide complete coverage and flexibility to explore and understand findings. Systematic search assures rigour and reduces bias, while narrative synthesis allows for flexible integration and interpretation. This balance improves review quality and utility.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria.

The study’s scope was confined to January 2013 to December 2023, focusing exclusively on undergraduate medical students. The research encompassed articles originating within medical schools worldwide, accepting content from all countries. The criteria included only full-text articles in English published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary research was considered, embracing quantitative and mixed-method research. The selected studies had to explicitly reference academic performance, test results, or GPA as key outcomes to address the research question.

Exclusion criteria

The study excluded individuals beyond the undergraduate medical student demographic, such as students in other health fields and junior doctors. There was no imposed age limit for the student participants. The research specifically focused on articles within medical schools, excluding those from alternative settings. It solely considered full-text articles in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Letters or commentary articles were excluded, and the study did not limit itself to a particular type of research. Qualitative studies were excluded from the review because they did not have the quantitative measures required to answer the review’s aim. This review excluded articles on factors impacting academic performance, those analysing nursing students, and gender differences. The reasons and numbers for excluding articles are shown in Table  1 .

Information sources

Eight electronic databases were used to search the literature. These were the following: Academic Search Ultimate, British Education Index, CINAHL, Education Abstract, ERIC, Medline, APA Psych Articles and APA Psych Info. The databases were chosen from several fields based on relevant topics, including education, academic evaluation and assessment, medical education, psychology, mental health, and medical research. Initially, with the help of a subject librarian, the researcher used all the above databases; the databases were searched with specific keywords and terms, and the terms were divided into the following concepts emotions, academic performance and medical students. Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, and the reference list of the retrieved articles were also used to identify other relevant articles.

Search strategy

This review started with a search of the databases. Eight electronic databases were used to search the literature from 2013 to 2023. Specific keywords and terms were used to search the databases, resulting in 3,285,208 articles. After removing duplicates, letters and commentary, this number was reduced to 1,637 articles. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were then applied, resulting in 45 articles. After two assessors assessed the literature, 17 articles were selected for the review. The search terms are as follows:

Keywords: Emotion, anxiety, stress, empathy, test anxiety, exam anxiety, test stress, exam stress, depression, emotional regulation, test scores, academic performance, grades, GPA, academic achievement, academic success, test result, assessment, undergraduate medical students and undergraduate medical education.

Emotions: TI (Emotion* OR Anxiety OR Stress OR empathy) OR emotion* OR (test anxiety or exam anxiety or test stress or exam stress) OR (depression) OR AB ((Emotion* OR Anxiety OR Stress OR empathy) OR emotion* OR (test anxiety or exam anxiety or test stress or exam stress)) (MH “Emotions”) OR (MH “Emotional Regulation”) DE “EMOTIONS”.

Academic performance: TI (test scores or academic performance or grades or GPA) OR (academic achievement or academic performance or academic success) OR (test result* OR assessment*) OR AB (test scores or academic performance or grades or GPA) OR (academic achievement or academic performance or academic success) OR test result* OR assessment*.

Medical Students: TI (undergraduate medical students OR undergraduate medical education) OR AB (undergraduate medical students OR undergraduate medical education), TI “medical students” OR AB “medical students” DE “Medical Students”.

Selection process

This literature review attempts to gather only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English on undergraduate medical students’ negative and positive emotions and academic performance from January 2013 to December 2023. Their emotions, including depression, anxiety, physiological distress, shame, happiness, joy, and all emotions related to academic performance, were examined in quantitative research and mixed methods.

Moreover, to focus the search, the author specified and defined each keyword using advanced search tools, such as subject headings in the case of the Medline database. The author used ‘MeSH 2023’ as the subject heading, then entered the term ‘Emotion’ and chose all the relevant meanings. This method was applied to most of the keywords.

Studies were included based on predefined criteria related to study design, participants, exposure, outcomes, and study types. Two independent reviewers screened each record, and the report was retrieved. In the screening process, reviewers independently assessed each article against the inclusion criteria, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus during regular team meetings. In cases of persistent disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted. Endnote library program was used for the initial screening phase. This tool was used to identify duplicates, facilitated the independent screening of titles and abstracts and helped to retrieve the full-text articles. The reasons for excluding the articles are presented in Table  1 .

Data collection process

Two independent reviewers extracted data from the eligible studies, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion and consensus. If the two primary reviewers could not agree, a third reviewer served as an arbitrator. For each included study, the following information was extracted and recorded in a standardised database: first author name, publication year, study design, sample characteristics, details of the emotions exposed, outcome measures, and results.

Academic performance as an outcome for medical students was defined to include the following: Exam scores (e.g., midterm, final exams), Clinical assessments (e.g., practical exams, clinical rotations), Overall grade point average (GPA) or any other relevant indicators of academic achievement.

Data were sought for all outcomes, including all measures, time points, and analyses within each outcome domain. In cases where studies reported multiple measures or time points, all relevant data were extracted to provide a comprehensive overview of academic performance. If a study reported outcomes beyond the predefined domains, inclusion criteria were established to determine whether these additional outcomes would be included in the review. This involved assessing relevance to the primary research question and alignment with the predefined outcome domains.

Quality assessment

The quality and risk of bias in included studies were assessed using the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) critical appraisal tool. The tool evaluates studies based on the following domains: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other biases. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias in each included study. Reviewers worked collaboratively to reach a consensus on assessments. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. In cases of persistent disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted.

To determine the validity of eligible articles, all the included articles were critically appraised, and all reviewers assessed bias. The validity and reliability of the results were assessed by using objective measurement. Each article was scored out of 14, with 14 indicating high-quality research and 1 indicating low-quality research. High-quality research, according to the NIH (2013), includes a clear and focused research question, defines the study population, features a high participation rate, mentions inclusion and exclusion criteria, uses clear and specific measurements, reports results in detail, lists the confounding factors and lists the implications for the local community. Therefore, an article was scored 14 if it met all criteria of the critical appraisal tool. Based on scoring, each study was classified into one of three quality categories: good, fair or poor. The poorly rated articles mean their findings were unreliable, and they will not be considered, including two articles [ 16 , 19 ]. Seventeen articles were chosen after critical appraisal using the NIH appraisal tool, as shown in Table  2 .

Effect measures

For each outcome examined in the included studies, various effect measures were utilised to quantify the relationship between emotions and academic performance among undergraduate medical students. The effect measures commonly reported across the studies included prevalence rat, correlation coefficients, and mean differences. The reviewer calculated the effect size for the studies that did not report the effect. The choice of effect measure depended on the nature of the outcome variable and the statistical analysis conducted in each study. These measures were used to assess the strength and direction of the association between emotional factors and academic performance.

The synthesis method

The findings of individual studies were summarised to highlight crucial characteristics. Due to the predicted heterogeneity, the synthesis involved pooling effect estimates and using a narrative method. A narrative synthesis approach was employed in the synthesis of this review to assess and interpret the findings from the included studies qualitatively. The narrative synthesis involved a qualitative examination of the content of each study, focusing on identifying common themes. This synthesis was employed to categorise and interpret data, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the synthesis. Themes related to emotions were identified and extracted for synthesis. Control-value theory [ 20 ] was used as an overarching theory, providing a qualitative synthesis of the evidence and contributing to a deeper understanding of the research question. If the retrieved articles include populations other than medical, such as dental students or non-medical students, the synthesis will distinguish between them and summarise the findings of the medical students only, highlighting any differences or similarities.

The Control-Value Theory, formulated by Pekrun (2006), is a conceptual framework that illustrates the relationship between emotions and academic achievement through two fundamental assessments: control and value. Control pertains to the perceived ability of a learner to exert influence over their learning activities and the results they achieve. Value relates to a student’s significance to these actions and results. The theory suggests that students are prone to experiencing good feelings, such as satisfaction and pride when they possess a strong sense of control and importance towards their academic assignments. On the other hand, individuals are prone to encountering adverse emotions (such as fear and embarrassment) when they perceive a lack of control or worth in these particular occupations. These emotions subsequently impact students’ motivation, learning strategies, and, eventually, their academic achievement. The relevance of control-value theory in reviewing medical student emotions and their influence on academic performance is evident for various reasons. This theory offers a complete framework that facilitates comprehending the intricate connection between emotions and academic achievement. It considers positive and negative emotions, providing a comprehensive viewpoint on how emotions might influence learning and performance. The relevance of control and value notions is particularly significant for medical students due to their frequent exposure to high-stakes tests and difficult courses. Gaining insight into the students’ perception of their power over academic assignments and the importance they attach to their medical education might aid in identifying emotional stimuli and devising remedies. Multiple research has confirmed the theory’s assertions, showing the critical influence of control and value evaluations on students’ emotional experiences and academic achievements [ 21 , 22 ].

Data extraction

For this step, a data extraction sheet was developed using the data extraction template provided by the Cochrane Handbook. To ensure the review is evidence-based and bias-free, the Cochrane Handbook strongly suggests that more than one reviewer review the data. Therefore, the main researcher extracted the data from the included studies, and another reviewer checked the included, excluded and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved via discussion by a third reviewer. The data extraction Table  2 identified all study features, including the author’s name, the year of publication, the method used the aim of the study, the number and description of participants, data collection tools, and study findings.

Finalisation of references and study characteristics

Prisma sheet and the summary of final studies that have been used for the review.

When the keywords and search terms related to emotions, as mentioned above, in the eight databases listed, 3,285,208 articles were retrieved. After using advanced search and subject headings, the number of articles increased to 3,352,371. Similarly, searching for the second keyword, ‘academic performance,’ using all the advanced search tools yielded 8,119,908 articles. Searching for the third keyword, ‘medical students’, yielded 145,757 articles. All terms were searched in article titles and abstracts. After that, the author combined all search terms by using ‘AND’ and applied the time limit from 2013 to 2023; the search narrowed to 2,570 articles. After duplicates, letters and commentary were excluded, the number was reduced to 1,637 articles. After reading the title and abstract to determine relevance to the topic and applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria mentioned above, 45 articles remained; after the quality of the retrieved literature was assessed by two reviewers, 17 articles were selected for the review. The PRISMA flow diagram summarising the same is presented in Fig.  1 . Additionally, One article by Ansari et al. (2018) was selected for the review; it met most inclusion and exclusion criteria except that the outcome measure is cognitive function and not academic performance. Therefore, it was excluded from the review. Figure  1 shows the Prisma flow diagram (2020) of studies identified from the databases.

Prisma flow diagram (2020)

Study characteristics

Table  2 , summarising the characteristics of the included studies, is presented below.

Findings of the study

Country of the study.

Many of the studies were conducted in developing countries, with the majority being conducted in Europe ( n  = 4), followed by Pakistan ( n  = 2), then Saudi Arabia ( n  = 2), and the United States ( n  = 2). The rest of the studies were conducted in South America ( n  = 1), Morocco ( n  = 1), Brazil ( n  = 1), Australia ( n  = 1), Iran ( n  = 1), South Korea ( n  = 1) and Bosnia and Herzegovina ( n  = 1). No included studies were conducted in the United Kingdom.

Study design

Regarding study design, most of the included articles used a quantitative methodology, including 12 cross-sectional studies. There were two randomised controlled trials, one descriptive correlation study, one cohort study, and only one mixed-method study.

Population and study setting

Regarding population and setting, most of the studies focused on all medical students studying in a medical school setting, from first-year medical students to those in their final year. One study compared medical students with non-medical students; another combined medical students with dental students.

The study aims varied across the included studies. Seven studies examined the prevalence of depression and anxiety among medical students and their relation to academic performance. Four studies examined the relationship between test anxiety and academic performance in medical education. Four studies examined the relationship between medical students’ emotions and academic achievements. One study explored the influence of shame on medical students’ learning.

Study quality

The studies were assessed for quality using tools created by the NIH (2013) and then divided into good, fair, and poor based on these results. Nine studies had a high-quality methodology, seven achieved fair ratings, and only three achieved poor ratings. The studies that were assigned the poor rating were mainly cross-sectional studies, and the areas of weakness were due to the study design, low response rate, inadequate reporting of the methodology and statistics, invalid tools, and unclear research goals.

Outcome measures

Most of the outcome measures were heterogenous and self-administered questionnaires; one study used focus groups and observation ward assessment [ 23 ]. All the studies used the medical students’ academic grades.

Results of the study

The prevalence rate of psychological distress in the retrieved articles.

Depression and anxiety are the most common forms of psychological distress examined concerning academic outcomes among medical students. Studies consistently show concerningly high rates, with prevalence estimates ranging from 7.3 to 66.4% for anxiety and 3.7–69% for depression. These findings indicate psychological distress levels characterised as moderate to high based on common cut-off thresholds have a clear detrimental impact on academic achievement [ 16 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].

The studies collectively examine the impact of psychological factors on academic performance in medical education contexts, using a range of effect sizes to quantify their findings. Aboalshamat et al. (2015) identified a small effect size ( η 2 = 0.018) for depression’s impact on academic performance, suggesting a modest influence. Mihailescu (2016) found a significant negative correlation between levels of depression/anxiety (rho=-0.14, rho=-0.19), academic performance and GPA among medical students. Burr and Beck Dallaghan (2019) reported professional efficacy explaining 31.3% of the variance in academic performance, indicating a significant effect size. However, Del-Ben (2013) et al. did not provide the significant impact of affective changes on academic achievement, suggesting trivial effect sizes for these factors.

In conclusion, anxiety and depression, both indicators of psychological discomfort, are common among medical students. There is a link between distress and poor academic performance results, implying that this relationship merits consideration. Table  3 below shows the specific value of depression and anxiety in retrieved articles.

Test anxiety

In this review, four studies examined the relationship between test anxiety and academic performance in medical education [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. The studies found high rates of test anxiety among medical students, ranging from 52% [ 27 ] to as high as 81.1% [ 29 ]. Final-year students tend to experience the highest test anxiety [ 29 ].

Test anxiety has a significant negative correlation with academic performance measures and grade point average (GPA) [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Green et al. (2016) found that test anxiety was moderately negatively correlated with USMLE score ( r = − 0.24, p  = 0.00); high test anxiety was associated with low USMLE scores in the control group, further suggesting that anxiety can adversely affect performance. The findings that a test-taking strategy course reduced anxiety without improving test scores highlight the complex nature of anxiety’s impact on performance.

Nazir et al. (2021) found that excellent female medical students reported significantly lower test anxiety than those with low academic grades, with an odds ratio of 1.47, indicating that students with higher test anxiety are more likely to have lower academic grades. Kim’s (2016) research shows moderate correlations between test anxiety and negative achievement emotions such as anxiety and boredom, but interestingly, this anxiety does not significantly affect practical exam scores (OSCE) or GPAs. However, one study found that examination stress enhanced academic performance with a large effect size (W = 0.78), with stress levels at 47.4% among their sample, suggesting that a certain stress level before exams may be beneficial [ 30 ].

Three papers explored shame’s effect on medical students’ academic achievement [ 24 , 31 , 32 ]. Hayat et al. (2018) reported that academic feelings, like shame, significantly depend on the academic year. shame was found to have a slight negative and significant correlation with the academic achievement of learners ( r =-0.15). One study found that some medical students felt shame during simulations-based education examinations because they had made incorrect decisions, which decreased their self-esteem and motivation to learn. However, others who felt shame were motivated to study harder to avoid repeating the same mistakes [ 23 ].

Hautz (2017) study examined how shame affects medical students’ learning using a randomised controlled trial where researchers divided the students into two groups: one group performed a breast examination on mannequins and the other group on actual patients. The results showed that students who performed the clinical examination on actual patients experienced significantly higher levels of shame but performed better in examinations than in the mannequin group. In the final assessments on standardised patients, both groups performed equally well. Therefore, shame decreased with more clinical practice, but shame did not have significant statistics related to learning or performance. Similarly, Burr and Dallaghan (2019) reported that the shame level of medical students was (40%) but had no association with academic performance.

Academic performance, emotions and medical students

Three articles discussed medical students’ emotions and academic performance [ 23 , 24 , 32 ]. Burr and Dallaghan (2019) examine the relationship between academic success and emotions in medical students, such as pride, hope, worry, and shame. It emphasises the links between academic accomplishment and professional efficacy, as well as hope, pride, worry, and shame. Professional efficacy was the most significant factor linked to academic performance, explaining 31.3% of the variance. The importance of emotions on understanding, processing of data, recall of memories, and cognitive burden is emphasised throughout the research. To improve academic achievement, efforts should be made to increase student self-efficacy.

Hayat et al. (2018) found that positive emotions and intrinsic motivation are highly connected with academic achievement, although emotions fluctuate between educational levels but not between genders. The correlations between negative emotions and academic achievement, ranging from − 0.15 to -0.24 for different emotions, suggest small but statistically significant adverse effects.

Behren et al.‘s (2019) mixed-method study found that students felt various emotions during the simulation, focusing on positive emotions and moderate anxiety. However, no significant relationships were found between positive emotions and the student’s performance during the simulation [ 23 ].

This review aims to investigate the role of emotions in the academic performance of undergraduate medical students. Meta-analysis cannot be used because of the heterogeneity of the data collection tools and different research designs [ 33 ]. Therefore, narrative synthesis was adopted in this paper. The studies are grouped into four categories as follows: (1) The effect of depression and anxiety on academic performance, (2) Test anxiety and academic achievement, (3) Shame and academic performance, and (4) Academic performance, emotions and medical students. The control-value theory [ 20 ], will be used to interpret the findings.

The effect of depression and anxiety on academic performance

According to the retrieved research, depression and anxiety can have both a negative and a positive impact on the academic performance of medical students. Severe anxiety may impair memory function, decrease concentration, lead to a state of hypervigilance, interfere with judgment and cognitive function, and further affect academic performance [ 4 ]. Most of the good-quality retrieved articles found that anxiety and depression were associated with low academic performance [ 16 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Moreira (2018) and Mihailescu (2016) found that higher depression levels were associated with more failed courses and a lower GPA. However, they did not find any association between anxiety level and academic performance.

By contrast, some studies have suggested that experiencing some level of anxiety reinforces students’ motivation to improve their academic performance [ 16 , 34 ]. Zalihic et al. (2017) conducted a study to investigate anxiety sensitivity about academic success and noticed a positive relationship between anxiety level and high academic scores; they justified this because when medical students feel anxious, they tend to prepare and study more, and they desire to achieve better scores and fulfil social expectations. Similarly, another study found anxiety has a negative impact on academic performance when excessive and a positive effect when manageable, in which case it encourages medical students and motivates them to achieve higher scores [ 35 ].

In the broader literature, the impact of anxiety on academic performance has contradictory research findings. While some studies suggest that having some level of anxiety can boost students’ motivation to improve their academic performance, other research has shown that anxiety has a negative impact on their academic success [ 36 , 37 ]. In the cultural context, education and anxiety attitudes differ widely across cultures. High academic pressure and societal expectations might worsen anxiety in many East Asian societies. Education is highly valued in these societies, frequently leading to significant academic stress. This pressure encompasses attaining high academic marks and outperformance in competitive examinations. The academic demands exerted on students can result in heightened levels of anxiety. The apprehension of not meeting expectations can lead to considerable psychological distress and anxiety, which can appear in their physical and mental health and academic achievement [ 38 , 39 ].

Test anxiety and academic achievement

The majority of the studies reviewed confirm that test anxiety negatively affects academic performance [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Several studies have found a significant correlation between test anxiety and academic achievement, indicating that higher levels of test anxiety are associated with lower exam scores and lower academic performance [ 40 , 41 ]. For example, Green et al. (2016) RCT study found that test anxiety has a moderately significant negative correlation with the USMLE score. They found that medical students who took the test-taking strategy course had lower levels of test anxiety than the control group, and their test anxiety scores after the exam had improved from the baseline. Although their test anxiety improved after taking the course, there was no significant difference in the exam scores between students who had and had not taken the course. Therefore, the intervention they used was not effective. According to the control-value theory, this intervention can be improved if they design an emotionally effective learning environment, have a straightforward instructional design, foster self-regulation of negative emotions, and teach students emotion-oriented regulation [ 22 ].

Additionally, according to this theory, students who perceive exams as difficult are more likely to experience test anxiety because test anxiety results from a student’s negative appraisal of the task and outcome values, leading to a reduction in their performance. This aligns with Kim’s (2016) study, which found that students who believed that the OSCE was a problematic exam experienced test anxiety more than other students [ 9 , 22 , 42 ].

In the wider literature, a meta-analysis review by von der Embse (2018) found a medium significant negative correlation ( r =-0.24) between test anxiety and test performance in undergraduate educational settings [ 43 ] . Also, they found a small significant negative correlation ( r =-0.17) between test anxiety and GPA. This indicates that higher levels of test anxiety are associated with lower test performance. Moreover, Song et al. (2021) experimental study examined the effects of test anxiety on working memory capacity and found that test anxiety negatively correlated with academic performance [ 44 ]. Therefore, the evidence from Song’s study suggests a small but significant effect of anxiety on working memory capacity. However, another cross-sectional study revealed that test anxiety in medical students had no significant effect on exam performance [ 45 ]. The complexities of this relationship necessitate additional investigation. Since the retrieved articles are from different countries, it is critical to recognise the possible impact of cultural differences on the impact of test anxiety. Cultural factors such as different educational systems, assessment tools and societal expectations may lead to variances in test anxiety experience and expression across diverse communities [ 46 , 47 ]. Culture has a substantial impact on how test anxiety is expressed and evaluated. Research suggests that the degree and manifestations of test anxiety differ among different cultural settings, emphasising the importance of using culturally validated methods to evaluate test anxiety accurately. A study conducted by Lowe (2019) with Canadian and U.S. college students demonstrated cultural variations in the factors contributing to test anxiety. Canadian students exhibited elevated levels of physiological hyperarousal, but U.S. students had more pronounced cognitive interference. These variations indicate that the cultural environment has an influence on how students perceive and respond to test anxiety, resulting in differing effects on their academic performance in different cultures. Furthermore, scholars highlight the significance of carrying out meticulous instruments to assess test anxiety, which are comparable among diverse cultural cohorts. This technique guarantees that the explanations of test scores are reliable and can be compared across different populations. Hence, it is imperative to comprehend and tackle cultural disparities in order to create efficient interventions and assistance for students who encounter test anxiety in diverse cultural environments. Therefore, there is a need for further studies to examine the level of test anxiety and cultural context.

Shame and academic performance

The review examined three studies that discuss the impact of feelings of shame on academic performance [ 23 , 24 , 48 ]. Generally, shame is considered a negative emotion which involves self-reflection and self-evaluation, and it leads to rumination and self-condemnation [ 49 ]. Intimate examinations conducted by medical students can induce feelings of shame, affecting their ability to communicate with patients and their clinical decisions. Shame can increase the avoidance of intimate physical examinations and also encourage clinical practice [ 23 , 24 , 48 ].

One study found that some medical students felt shame during simulations-based education examinations because they had made incorrect decisions, which decreased their self-esteem and motivation to learn. However, others who felt shame were motivated to study harder to avoid repeating the same mistakes [ 23 ]. Shame decreased with more clinical practice, but shame did not affect their learning or performance [ 48 ]. The literature on how shame affects medical students’ learning is inconclusive [ 31 ].

In the broader literature, shame is considered maladaptive, leading to dysfunctional behaviour, encouraging withdrawal and avoidance of events and inhibiting social interaction. However, few studies have been conducted on shame in the medical field. Therefore, more research is needed to investigate the role of shame in medical students’ academic performance [ 49 ]. In the literature, there are several solutions that can be used to tackle the problem of shame in medical education; it is necessary to establish nurturing learning settings that encourage students to openly discuss their problems and mistakes without the worry of facing severe criticism. This can be accomplished by encouraging medical students to participate in reflective practice, facilitating the processing of their emotions, and enabling them to derive valuable insights from their experiences, all while avoiding excessive self-blame [ 50 ]. Offering robust mentorship and support mechanisms can assist students in effectively managing the difficulties associated with intimate examinations. Teaching staff have the ability to demonstrate proper behaviours and provide valuable feedback and effective mentoring [ 51 ]. Training and workshops that specifically target communication skills and the handling of sensitive situations can effectively equip students to handle intimate tests, hence decreasing the chances of them avoiding such examinations due to feelings of shame [ 52 ].

The literature review focused on three studies that examined the relationship between emotions and the academic achievements of medical students [ 23 , 24 , 32 ].

Behren et al. (2019) mixed-method study on the achievement emotions of medical students during simulations found that placing students in challenging clinical cases that they can handle raises positive emotions. Students perceived these challenges as a positive drive for learning and mild anxiety was considered beneficial. However, the study also found non-significant correlations between emotions and performance during the simulation, indicating a complex relationship between emotions and academic performance. The results revealed that feelings of frustration were perceived to reduce students’ interest and motivation for studying, hampered their decision-making process, and negatively affected their self-esteem, which is consistent with the academic achievement emotions literature where negative emotions are associated with poor intrinsic motivation and reduced the ability to learn [ 3 ].

The study also emphasises that mild anxiety can have positive effects, corroborated by Gregor (2005), which posits that moderate degrees of anxiety can improve performance. The author suggests that an ideal state of arousal (which may be experienced as anxiety) enhances performance. Mild anxiety is commonly seen as a type of psychological stimulation that readies the body for upcoming challenges, frequently referred to as a “fight or flight” response. Within the realm of academic performance, this state of heightened arousal can enhance concentration and optimise cognitive functions such as memory, problem-solving skills, and overall performance. However, once the ideal point is surpassed, any additional increase in arousal can result in a decline in performance [ 53 ]. This is additionally supported by Cassady and Johnson (2002), who discovered that a specific level of anxiety can motivate students to engage in more comprehensive preparation, hence enhancing their performance.

The reviewed research reveals a positive correlation between positive emotions and academic performance and a negative correlation between negative emotions and academic performance. These findings align with the control–value theory [ 8 , 22 ], which suggests that positive emotions facilitate learning through mediating factors, including cognitive learning strategies such as strategic thinking, critical thinking and problem-solving and metacognitive learning strategies such as monitoring, regulating, and planning students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Additionally, several studies found that extrinsic motivation from the educational environment and the application of cognitive and emotional strategies improve students’ ability to learn and, consequently, their academic performance [ 23 , 24 , 32 ]. By contrast, negative emotions negatively affect academic performance. This is because negative emotions reduce students’ motivation, concentration, and ability to process information [ 23 , 24 , 32 ].

Limitations of the study

This review aims to thoroughly investigate the relationship between emotions and academic performance in undergraduate medical students, but it has inherent limitations. Overall, the methodological quality of the retrieved studies is primarily good and fair. Poor-quality research was excluded from the synthesis. The good-quality papers demonstrated strengths in sampling techniques, data analysis, collection and reporting. However, most of the retrieved articles used cross-section studies, and the drawback of this is a need for a more causal relationship, which is a limitation in the design of cross-sectional studies. Furthermore, given the reliance on self-reported data, there were concerns about potential recall bias. These methodological difficulties were noted in most of the examined research. When contemplating the implications for practice and future study, the impact of these limitations on the validity of the data should be acknowledged.

The limitation of the review process and the inclusion criteria restricted the study to articles published from January 2013 to December 2023, potentially overlooking relevant research conducted beyond this timeframe. Additionally, the exclusive focus on undergraduate medical students may constrain the applicability of findings to other health fields or educational levels.

Moreover, excluding articles in non-English language and those not published in peer-reviewed journals introduces potential language and publication biases. Reliance on electronic databases and specific keywords may inadvertently omit studies using different terms or indexing. While the search strategy is meticulous, it might not cover every relevant study due to indexing and database coverage variations. However, the two assessors’ involvement in study screening, selection, data extraction, and quality assessment improved the robustness of the review and ensured that it included all the relevant research.

In conclusion, these limitations highlight the need for careful interpretation of the study’s findings and stress the importance of future research addressing these constraints to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the nuanced relationship between emotions and academic performance in undergraduate medical education.

Conclusion and future research

The review exposes the widespread prevalence of depression, anxiety and test anxiety within the medical student population. The impact on academic performance is intricate, showcasing evidence of adverse and favourable relationships. Addressing the mental health challenges of medical students necessitates tailored interventions for enhancing mental well-being in medical education. Furthermore, it is crucial to create practical strategies considering the complex elements of overcoming test anxiety. Future research should prioritise the advancement of anxiety reduction strategies to enhance academic performance, focusing on the control-value theory’s emphasis on creating an emotionally supportive learning environment. Additionally, Test anxiety is very common among medical students, but the literature has not conclusively determined its actual effect on academic performance. Therefore, there is a clear need for a study that examines the relationship between test anxiety and academic performance. Moreover, the retrieved literature did not provide effective solutions for managing test anxiety. This gap highlights the need for practical solutions informed by Pekrun’s Control-Value Theory. Ideally, a longitudinal study measuring test anxiety and exam scores over time would be the most appropriate approach. it is also necessary to explore cultural differences to develop more effective solutions and support systems tailored to specific cultural contexts.

The impact of shame on academic performance in medical students was inconclusive. Shame is a negative emotion that has an intricate influence on learning outcomes. The inadequacy of current literature emphasises the imperative for additional research to unravel the nuanced role of shame in the academic journeys of medical students.

Overall, emotions play a crucial role in shaping students’ academic performance, and research has attempted to find solutions to improve medical students’ learning experiences; thus, it is recommended that medical schools revise their curricula and consider using simulation-based learning in their instructional designs to enhance learning and improve students’ emotions. Also, studies have suggested using academic coaching to help students achieve their goals, change their learning styles, and apply self-testing and simple rehearsal of the material. Moreover, the study recommended to improve medical students’ critical thinking and autonomy and changing teaching styles to support students better.

Data availability

all included articles are mentioned in the manuscript, The quality assessment of included articles are located in the supplementary materials file no. 1.

Weurlander M, Lonn A, Seeberger A, Hult H, Thornberg R, Wernerson A. Emotional challenges of medical students generate feelings of uncertainty. Med Educ. 2019;53(10):1037–48.

Article   Google Scholar  

Boekaerts M, Pekrun R. Emotions and emotion regulation in academic settings. Handbook of educational psychology: Routledge; 2015. pp. 90–104.

Google Scholar  

Camacho-Morles J, Slemp GR, Pekrun R, Loderer K, Hou H, Oades LG. Activity achievement emotions and academic performance: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychol Rev. 2021;33(3):1051–95.

Aboalshamat K, Hou X-Y, Strodl E. Psychological well-being status among medical and dental students in Makkah, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Med Teach. 2015;37(Suppl 1):S75–81.

Mirghni HO, Ahmed Elnour MA. The perceived stress and approach to learning effects on academic performance among Sudanese medical students. Electron Physician. 2017;9(4):4072–6.

Baessler F, Zafar A, Schweizer S, Ciprianidis A, Sander A, Preussler S, et al. Are we preparing future doctors to deal with emotionally challenging situations? Analysis of a medical curriculum. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(7):1304–12.

Rowe AD, Fitness J. Understanding the role of negative emotions in Adult Learning and Achievement: a Social Functional Perspective. Behav Sci (Basel). 2018;8(2).

Pekrun R, Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Perry RP. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. Emotion in education: Elsevier; 2007. pp. 13–36.

Zeidner M. Test anxiety: The state of the art. 1998.

Cassady JC, Johnson RE. Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2002;27(2):270–95.

Tangney JP, Dearing RL. Shame and guilt: Guilford Press; 2003.

Fang J, Brown GT, Hamilton R. Changes in Chinese students’ academic emotions after examinations: pride in success, shame in failure, and self-loathing in comparison. Br J Educ Psychol. 2023;93(1):245–61.

York TT, Gibson C, Rankin S. Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assess Res Evaluation. 2019;20(1):5.

Abdulghani HM, Irshad M, Al Zunitan MA, Al Sulihem AA, Al Dehaim MA, Al Esefir WA, et al. Prevalence of stress in junior doctors during their internship training: a cross-sectional study of three Saudi medical colleges’ hospitals. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:1879–86.

Moreira de Sousa J, Moreira CA, Telles-Correia D, Anxiety. Depression and academic performance: a Study Amongst Portuguese Medical Students Versus non-medical students. Acta Med Port. 2018;31(9):454–62.

Junaid MA, Auf AI, Shaikh K, Khan N, Abdelrahim SA. Correlation between academic performance and anxiety in Medical students of Majmaah University - KSA. JPMA J Pakistan Med Association. 2020;70(5):865–8.

MihĂIlescu AI, Diaconescu LV, Donisan T, Ciobanu AM, THE INFLUENCE OF EMOTIONAL, DISTRESS ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS. Romanian J Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;4(1/2):27–40.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372.

Hahn H, Kropp P, Kirschstein T, Rücker G, Müller-Hilke B. Test anxiety in medical school is unrelated to academic performance but correlates with an effort/reward imbalance. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2):1–13.

Pekrun R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educational Psychol Rev. 2006;18(4):315–41.

Graesser AC. Emotions are the experiential glue of learning environments in the 21st century. Learn Instruction. 2019.

Pekrun R, Perry RP. Control-value theory of achievement emotions. International handbook of emotions in education: Routledge; 2014. pp. 120 – 41.

Behrens CC, Dolmans DH, Gormley GJ, Driessen EW. Exploring undergraduate students achievement emotions during ward round simulation: a mixed-method study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):316.

Burr J, Beck-Dallaghan GL. The relationship of emotions and Burnout to Medical Students’ academic performance. Teach Learn Med. 2019;31(5):479–86.

Zalihić A, Mešukić S, Sušac B, Knezović K, Martinac M. Anxiety sensitivity as a predictor of academic success of medical students at the University of Mostar. Psychiatria Danubina. 2017;29(Suppl 4):851–4.

Del-Ben CM, Machado VF, Madisson MM, Resende TL, Valério FP, Troncon LEDA. Relationship between academic performance and affective changes during the first year at medical school. Med Teach. 2013;35(5):404–10.

Nazir MA, Izhar F, Talal A, Sohail ZB, Majeed A, Almas K. A quantitative study of test anxiety and its influencing factors among medical and dental students. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2021;16(2):253–9.

Green M, Angoff N, Encandela J. Test anxiety and United States Medical Licensing Examination scores. Clin Teacher. 2016;13(2):142–6.

Ben Loubir D, Serhier Z, Diouny S, Battas O, Agoub M, Bennani Othmani M. Prevalence of stress in Casablanca medical students: a cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;19:149.

Kausar U, Haider SI, Mughal IA, Noor MSA, Stress levels; stress levels of final year mbbs students and its effect on their academic performance. Prof Med J. 2018;25(6):932–6.

Hautz WE, Schröder T, Dannenberg KA, März M, Hölzer H, Ahlers O, et al. Shame in Medical Education: a randomized study of the Acquisition of intimate Examination skills and its effect on subsequent performance. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(2):196–206.

Hayat AA, Salehi A, Kojuri J. Medical student’s academic performance: the role of academic emotions and motivation. J Adv Med Educ Professionalism. 2018;6(4):168–75.

Deeks JJ, Riley RD, Higgins JP. Combining Results Using Meta-Analysis. Systematic Reviews in Health Research: Meta‐Analysis in Context. 2022:159 – 84.

Aboalshamat K, Hou X-Y, Strodl E. The impact of a self-development coaching programme on medical and dental students’ psychological health and academic performance: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:134.

Jamil H, Alakkari M, Al-Mahini MS, Alsayid M, Al Jandali O. The impact of anxiety and depression on academic performance: a cross-sectional study among medical students in Syria. Avicenna J Med. 2022;12(03):111–9.

Mirawdali S, Morrissey H, Ball P. Academic anxiety and its effects on academic performance. 2018.

Al-Qaisy LM. The relation of depression and anxiety in academic achievement among group of university students. Int J Psychol Couns. 2011;3(5):96–100.

Cheng DR, Poon F, Nguyen TT, Woodman RJ, Parker JD. Stigma and perception of psychological distress and depression in Australian-trained medical students: results from an inter-state medical school survey. Psychiatry Res. 2013;209(3):684–90.

Lee M, Larson R. The Korean ‘examination hell’: long hours of studying, distress, and depression. J Youth Adolesc. 2000;29(2):249–71.

Ali SK. 861 – Social phobia among medical students. Eur Psychiatry. 2013;28:1.

Bonna AS, Sarwar M, Md Nasrullah A, Bin Razzak S, Chowdhury KS, Rahman SR. Exam anxiety among medical students in Dhaka City and its Associated Factors-A cross-sectional study. Asian J Med Health. 2022;20(11):20–30.

Kim K-J. Factors associated with medical student test anxiety in objective structured clinical examinations: a preliminary study. Int J Med Educ. 2016;7:424–7.

Von der Embse N, Jester D, Roy D, Post J. Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: a 30-year meta-analytic review. J Affect Disord. 2018;227:483–93.

Song J, Chang L, Zhou R. Test anxiety impairs filtering ability in visual working memory: evidence from event-related potentials. J Affect Disord. 2021;292:700–7.

Theobald M, Breitwieser J, Brod G. Test anxiety does not predict exam performance when knowledge is controlled for: strong evidence against the interference hypothesis of test anxiety. Psychol Sci. 2022;33(12):2073–83.

Lowe PA. Examination of test anxiety in samples of Australian and US Higher Education Students. High Educ Stud. 2019;9(4):33–43.

Kavanagh BE, Ziino SA, Mesagno C. A comparative investigation of test anxiety, coping strategies and perfectionism between Australian and United States students. North Am J Psychol. 2016;18(3).

Mihăilescu AI, Diaconescu LV, Ciobanu AM, Donisan T, Mihailescu C. The impact of anxiety and depression on academic performance in undergraduate medical students. Eur Psychiatry. 2016;33:S341–2.

Terrizzi JA Jr, Shook NJ. On the origin of shame: does shame emerge from an evolved disease-avoidance architecture? Front Behav Neurosci. 2020;14:19.

Epstein RM. Mindful practice. JAMA. 1999;282(9):833–9.

Hauer KE, Teherani A, Dechet A, Aagaard EM. Medical students’ perceptions of mentoring: a focus-group analysis. Med Teach. 2005;27(8):732–4.

Kalet A, Pugnaire MP, Cole-Kelly K, Janicik R, Ferrara E, Schwartz MD, et al. Teaching communication in clinical clerkships: models from the macy initiative in health communications. Acad Med. 2004;79(6):511–20.

Gregor A. Examination anxiety: live with it, control it or make it work for you? School Psychol Int. 2005;26(5):617–35.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Lancaster university library for helping me to search the literature and to find the appropriate databases and thanks to Lancaster university to prove access to several softwares.

No funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Nora Alshareef

Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Nora Alshareef, Ian Fletcher & Sabir Giga

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NA made substantial contributions throughout the systematic review process and was actively involved in writing and revising the manuscript. NA’s responsible for the design of the study, through the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, to the drafting and substantive revision of the manuscript. NA has approved the submitted version and is personally accountable for her contributions, ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the work. IF was instrumental in screening the literature, extracting data, and conducting the quality assessment of the included studies. Additionally, IF played a crucial role in revising the results and discussion sections of the manuscript, ensuring that the interpretation of data was both accurate and insightful. IF has approved the submitted version and has agreed to be personally accountable for his contributions, particularly in terms of the accuracy and integrity of the parts of the work he was directly involved in. SG contributed significantly to the selection of papers and data extraction, demonstrating critical expertise in resolving disagreements among authors. SG’s involvement was crucial in revising the entire content of the manuscript, enhancing its coherence and alignment with the study’s objectives. SG has also approved the submitted version and is personally accountable for his contributions, committed to upholding the integrity of the entire work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nora Alshareef .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Consent of publication was obtained from the other authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alshareef, N., Fletcher, I. & Giga, S. The role of emotions in academic performance of undergraduate medical students: a narrative review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 907 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05894-1

Download citation

Received : 08 March 2024

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 23 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05894-1

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

• Medical students
• Academic performance

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]