parts of the research paper serves as a practical suggestions for future researchers

Apr 26, 2024

Everything You Need to Know about the Parts of a Research Paper

Not sure where to start with your research paper or how all the parts fit together? Don't worry! From crafting a compelling title page to compiling your references, we'll demystify each section of a research paper.

Learn how to write an attention-grabbing abstract, construct a powerful introduction, and confidently present your results and discussion. With this guide, you'll gain the tools to assemble a polished and impactful piece of work.

What Are Research Papers?

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that presents an original argument or analysis based on independent, in-depth investigation into a specific topic.

Key Characteristics:

Evidence-Driven: Research papers rely on data, analysis, and interpretation of credible sources.

Focused Argument: They develop a clear thesis that is defended with logical reasoning and evidence.

Structured: Research papers follow specific organizational formats and citation styles.

Contribution to Knowledge: They aim to add something new to the existing body of knowledge within a field.

Types of Research Papers

Research papers come in various forms across academic disciplines:

Argumentative Papers : Present a compelling claim and utilize evidence to persuade readers.

Analytical Papers : Break down complex subjects, ideas, or texts, examining their components and implications.

Empirical Studies: Involve collecting and analyzing original data (through experiments, surveys, etc.) to answer specific research questions.

Literature Reviews: Synthesize existing research on a topic, highlighting key findings, debates, and areas for future exploration.

And More! Depending on the field, you may encounter case studies, reports, theoretical proposals, etc.

Defining Research Papers

Here's how research papers stand apart from other forms of writing:

Originality vs. Summary: While essays might recap existing knowledge, research papers offer new insights, arguments, or data.

Depth of Inquiry: Research papers delve deeper, going beyond basic definitions or summaries into a systematic investigation.

Scholarly Audience: Research papers are often written with a specialized academic audience in mind, employing discipline-specific language and conventions.

Important Note: The specific requirements of research papers can vary depending on the subject area, level of study (undergraduate vs. graduate), and the instructor's instructions.

Importance of Research Paper Structure

Think of structure as the backbone of your research paper. Here's why it matters for academic success:

Clarity for the Reader: A logical structure guides the reader through your research journey. They understand your thought process, easily follow your arguments, and grasp the significance of your findings.

Author's Roadmap: Structure serves as your blueprint. It helps you maintain focus, ensures you address all essential elements, and prevents you from veering off-topic.

Enhanced Persuasion: A well-structured paper builds a convincing case. Your ideas flow logically, evidence supports your claims, and your conclusion feels grounded and impactful.

Demonstration of Competence: A clear structure signals to your instructor or peers that you have a thorough understanding of research practices and scholarly writing conventions.

Is a Structured Approach Critical for the Success of Research Papers?

Yes! It's difficult to overstate the importance of structure. Here's why:

Lost in Chaos: Rambling or disorganized papers leave the reader confused and frustrated. Even the most insightful findings risk being overlooked if presented poorly.

Missed Components: Without structure, you might forget to include critical aspects, like a clear methodology section or a thorough literature review, weakening your research.

Hindered Peer Review: Reviewers rely on a standard structure to quickly assess the research's merits. A deviation can make their job harder and might negatively affect how your work is evaluated.

Benefits of a Clear Structure

Enhanced Understanding: Readers can easily follow your chain of reasoning, grasp the connection between your evidence and claims, and critically evaluate your findings.

Efficient Peer Review: A standard structure makes peer review more efficient and focused. Reviewers can easily identify strong points, areas for improvement, and contributions to the field.

Streamlined Writing: Having a structure offers clarity and direction, preventing you from getting stuck mid-flow or overlooking important elements.

Variations of Research Papers

Here's a breakdown of some common types of research papers:

Analytical Papers

Focus: Dissect a complex subject, text, or phenomenon to understand its parts, implications, or underlying meanings.

Structure: Emphasizes a clear thesis statement, systematic analysis, and in-depth exploration of different perspectives.

Example: Examining the symbolism in a literary work or analyzing the economic impact of a policy change.

Argumentative Papers

Focus: Present and defend a specific claim using evidence and logical reasoning.

Structure: Emphasizes a well-defined thesis, persuasive examples, and the anticipation and refutation of counterarguments.

Example: Arguing for the superiority of a particular scientific theory or advocating for a specific social policy.

Experimental Studies (Empirical Research)

Focus: Collect and analyze original data through a designed experiment or methodology.

Structure: Follows scientific practices, including hypothesis, methods, results, discussion, and acknowledgment of limitations.

Example: Measuring the effects of a new drug or conducting psychological experiments on behavior patterns.

Survey-Based Research

Focus: Gather information from a sample population through surveys, questionnaires, or interviews.

Structure: Emphasizes sampling methods, data collection tools, statistical analysis, and cautious interpretation of results.

Example: Investigating public opinion on a political issue or studying consumer preferences for a product.

Do All Research Papers Fit Into Standard Categories?

No. Research is fluid and dynamic. Here's why categorization can get tricky:

Hybrids Exist: Many papers mix elements. An analytical paper might also incorporate arguments to strengthen its interpretation, or an experimental paper might include a review of existing literature to contextualize its findings.

Disciplinary Differences: Fields have specific conventions. A research paper in history differs vastly in style and structure from one in biology.

Innovation: Researchers sometimes develop new structures or methodologies best suited to their unique research questions.

Comparing Research Paper Types

Each type prioritizes different aspects of the research process:

An abstract is like a snapshot of your entire paper, providing a brief but informative overview of your research. It's often the first (and sometimes the only) section readers will engage with.

Key Functions: An effective abstract should:

Briefly state the research problem or topic

Outline your methods (briefly)

Summarize the main findings or results

Highlight the significance or implications of your work

Writing a Compelling Abstract

Here are some guidelines to make your abstract shine:

Concise and Clear: Aim for around 150-250 words. Use direct language and avoid unnecessary jargon.

Structured Approach: Even in its brevity, follow a logical flow (problem, methods, results, significance).

Keywords: Include keywords that accurately describe your research, aiding in discoverability within databases.

Self-Contained: The abstract should make sense on its own, without needing the reader to have read the full paper.

Engaging: While focused, pique the reader's interest and make them want to explore your research further.

Write it Last: Often, it's easiest to write your abstract once the rest of your paper is complete, as you can then distill the most essential elements.

Get Feedback: Ask a peer or instructor to read your abstract to ensure it's clear and accurately represents your research.

Introduction

Think of your introduction as the welcome mat for your research. Here's what it should accomplish:

Establish Context: Provide background information relevant to your specific research question. Orient the reader to the broader field or current debates surrounding the topic.

Define the Problem: Clearly outline the gap in knowledge, issue, or question your research aims to address.

State the Hypothesis: Concisely declare your research hypothesis or thesis statement – the central claim you aim to prove.

Significance: Briefly explain why your research matters. What potential contributions or implications does it hold?

Is the Introduction More Important Than Other Sections?

No. While the introduction plays a big role in initially capturing your reader's attention and setting the stage, it is just one piece of the puzzle. Here's why all sections matter:

Methodology Matters: A sound methodology section is essential for establishing the credibility of your findings. Readers need to trust your process.

Results are Key: The results section presents your hard-earned data. Without it, your research doesn't have a foundation to support your claims.

Discussion is Vital: Here's where you interpret your results, connect them back to your hypothesis, and explore the broader implications of your work.

Conclusion is the Culmination: Your conclusion reinforces your key findings, acknowledges limitations, and leaves the reader with a lasting understanding of your research contribution.

Engaging Your Audience Early

Here are some strategies to capture attention from the start:

Open with a Question: Pose a thought-provoking question directly related to your research.

Surprising Statistic: Share a relevant and eye-opening statistic that highlights the significance of your topic.

Brief anecdote: An illustrative anecdote or a vivid example can provide a compelling hook.

Challenge Assumptions: Question a common belief or assumption within your field to signal that your research offers fresh insights.

Tip: Your opening should be relevant and directly connected to your research topic. Avoid gimmicks that don't authentically lead into your core argument.

Literature Review

A literature review goes beyond simply listing past studies on a topic. It synthesizes existing knowledge, laying the foundation for your own research contribution.

Goals of a Strong Literature Review:

Demonstrate your understanding of the field and its key scholarly conversations.

Identify gaps in current knowledge that your research can address.

Position your research in relation to existing work, showing how it builds upon or challenges previous findings.

Provide theoretical context or support for your chosen methodological approach.

Synthesizing Relevant Studies

Don't just summarize – analyze! Here's how to engage with the literature critically:

Identify Trends: Look for patterns or themes across multiple studies. Are there consistent results or ongoing debates?

Note Inconsistencies: Highlight any contradictions or conflicting findings within the existing research.

Assess Methodology: Consider the strengths and limitations of different research methods used in prior studies. Can you improve upon them in your research?

Connections to Your Work: Show how each source directly relates to your research question. Explain how it supports, challenges, or informs your own study.

Tips for Effective Synthesis:

Organization is Key: Structure your literature review thematically or chronologically to present findings in a logical way.

Your Voice Matters: Avoid stringing together quotes. Analyze the literature and offer your own interpretation of the collective insights.

Cite Accurately: Follow the citation style required by your discipline to give credit and avoid plagiarism.

Methodology

Your methodology section details the step-by-step process of how you conducted your research. It allows others to understand and potentially replicate your study.

Components: A methodology section typically includes:

Research Design: The overall approach (experimental, survey-based, qualitative, etc.)

Data Collection: Description of the tools, procedures, and sources used (experiments, surveys, interviews, archival documents).

Sample Selection: Details on participants (if applicable) and how they were chosen.

Data Analysis: Methods used (statistical tests, qualitative analysis techniques).

Ethical considerations: Explain how you safeguarded participants or addressed any ethical concerns related to your research.

Designing a Robust Methodology

Here's how to make your methodology section shine:

Alignment with Research Question: Your methods should be directly chosen to answer your research question in the most effective and appropriate way.

Rigor: Demonstrate a meticulous approach, considering potential sources of bias or error and outlining steps taken to mitigate them.

Transparency: Provide enough detail for replication. Another researcher should be able to follow your method.

Justification: Explain why you chose specific methods. Connect them to established practices within your field or defend their suitability for your unique research.

Does Methodology Determine the Quality of Research Outcomes?

Absolutely! Here's why a robust methodology is important:

Reliability: A sound methodology ensures your results are consistent. If your study was repeated using your methods, similar results should be attainable.

Validity: Validity ensures you're measuring what you intend to. A strong methodology helps you draw accurate conclusions from your data that address your research question.

Credibility: Your paper will be evaluated based on the thoroughness of your procedures. A clear and rigorous methodology enhances trust in your findings.

Your results section is where you present the data collected from your research. This includes raw data, statistical analyses, summaries of observations, etc.

Key Considerations:

Clarity: Organize results logically. Use tables, graphs, or figures to enhance visual clarity when appropriate.

Objectivity: Present data without bias. Even if findings don't support your initial hypothesis, report them accurately.

Don't Interpret (Yet): Avoid discussing implications here. Focus on a clear presentation of your findings.

Interpreting Data Effectively

Your discussion or analysis section is where you make sense of your results. Here's how to ensure your interpretation is persuasive:

Connect Back to the Hypothesis: State whether your results support, refute, or partially support your hypothesis.

Use Evidence: Reference specific data points, statistics, or observations to back up your claims.

Explanatory Power: Don't merely describe what happened. Explain why you believe your data led to these results.

Context is Key: Relate your findings to the existing literature. Do they align with previous research, or do they raise new questions?

Be Transparent: Acknowledge any limitations of your data or unexpected findings, providing potential explanations.

Tips for Effective Data Discussion:

Visuals as Support: Continue using graphs or figures to illustrate trends or comparisons that reinforce your analysis.

Highlight What Matters: Don't over-discuss insignificant data points. Focus on the results that are most relevant to your research question and contribute to your overall argument.

Tell a Story: Data shouldn't feel disjointed. Weave it into a narrative that addresses your research problem and positions your findings within the broader field.

Your discussion section elevates your findings, moving from simply reporting what you discovered to exploring its significance and potential impact.

Interpret the results in relation to your research question and hypothesis.

Consider alternative explanations for unexpected findings and discuss limitations of the research.

Place your findings in the context of the broader field, connecting them to theories and the existing body of research.

Suggest implications for future research or practical applications.

Linking Results to Theory

Here's how to make your discussion section shine:

Return to the Literature Review: Did your results support a specific theory from your literature review? Challenge it? Offer a nuanced modification?

Contradictions Offer Insights: If your results contradict existing theories, don't dismiss them. Explain possible reasons for the discrepancies and how that pushes your field's understanding further.

Conceptual Contribution: How does your research add to the theoretical frameworks within your area of study?

Building Blocks: Frame your research as one piece of a larger puzzle. Explain how your work contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation.

Tips for a Strong Discussion:

Avoid Overstating Significance: Maintain a scholarly tone and acknowledge the scope of your research. Don't claim your results revolutionize the field if it's not genuinely warranted.

Consider Future Directions: Responsible research isn't just about the past. Discuss what new questions arise based on your findings and offer avenues for potential future study.

Clarity Remains Key: Even when discussing complex ideas, use accessible language. Make your discussion meaningful to a wider audience within the field.

Conclusions

Your conclusion brings your research full circle. It's your chance to re-emphasize the most important takeaways of your work.

A Strong Conclusion Should:

Concisely restate the key research question or problem you sought to address.

Summarize your major findings and the most compelling evidence.

Briefly discuss the broader implications or contributions of your research.

Acknowledge limitations in the study (briefly).

Propose potential avenues for future research.

Can Conclusions Introduce New Research Questions?

Absolutely! Here's why this is valuable:

Sparking Curiosity: Ending with new questions emphasizes the ongoing nature of research and encourages further exploration beyond your own study.

Identifying Limitations: By highlighting where your work fell short, you guide future researchers toward filling those gaps.

Signaling Progress: Research is a continuous process of evolving knowledge. Your conclusion can be a springboard for others to expand upon your findings.

Crafting a Persuasive Conclusion

Here's how to make your conclusion impactful:

Reiterate, Don't Repeat: Remind the reader of your most significant findings, but avoid restating your thesis verbatim.

Confidence: Project a sense of conviction about the value of your work, without overstating its significance.

Clarity: Even in your conclusion, use direct language free of jargon. Leave the reader with a clear and lasting impression.

The Ripple Effect: Briefly highlight the broader relevance of your research. Why should readers beyond your niche field care?

Important: Your conclusion shouldn't introduce entirely new information or analyses. Rather, it should leave the reader pondering the implications of what you've already presented.

Giving Credit Where It's Due: Your references section lists the full details of every source you cited within your paper. This allows readers to locate those sources and acknowledges the intellectual work of others that you built upon.

Supporting Your Arguments: Credible references add weight to your claims, showing that your analysis is informed by established knowledge or reliable data.

Upholding Academic Standards: Accurate citations signal your commitment to scholarly practices and protect you from accusations of plagiarism.

Maintaining Citation Integrity

Here are the main practices to uphold:

Choose the Right Style: Follow the citation style mandated by your discipline (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). They have strict rules on formatting and which elements to include.

Consistency is Key: Use your chosen citation style uniformly throughout your paper. Mixed styles look sloppy and unprofessional.

Accuracy Matters: Double-check the details of each citation (authors, title, publication year, page numbers, etc.). Errors undermine your credibility.

Citation Tools: Use reliable resources like:

Online citation generators

Reference management software (Zotero, EndNote, etc..)

University library guides for your required style

Important Notes:

In-Text vs. References: In-text citations (within your writing) point the reader to the full citation in your references list. Both are needed.

Citation ≠ Bibliography: A bibliography may include sources you consulted but didn't directly cite, while the references list is specifically for cited works.

Writing Effective Research Papers: A Guide

Research papers aren't merely about having brilliant ideas – they're about effectively communicating those ideas. Strong writing allows you to showcase the value and rigor of your work.

Is Effective Writing Alone Sufficient for a Successful Research Paper?

No. Strong writing is vital but not a substitute for the core components of research. Consider this:

Even brilliant findings get lost in poor writing: Disorganized papers, unclear sentences, or misuse of discipline-specific terms hinder the reader from grasping your insights.

Writing is intertwined with research: The process of writing helps you clarify your own thinking, refine your arguments, and identify potential weaknesses in your logic.

Tips for Academic Writing

Here's how to elevate your research paper writing:

Define Your Terms: especially if using specialized jargon or complex concepts.

Favor Active Voice: Use strong verbs and keep the subject of your sentences clear. (Example: "The study demonstrates..." rather than "It is demonstrated...")

Avoid Ambiguity: Choose precise language to leave no room for misinterpretation.

Transitions Are Your Friend: Guide the reader smoothly between ideas and sections using signpost words and phrases.

Logical Structure: Your paper's organization (introduction, methods, etc.) should have an intuitive flow.

One Idea per Paragraph: Avoid overly dense paragraphs. Break down complex points for readability.

Strong Argumentation

Thesis as Roadmap: Your central thesis should be apparent throughout the paper. Each section should clearly connect back to it.

Strong Evidence: Use reliable data and examples to support your claims.

Anticipate Counterarguments: Show you've considered alternative viewpoints by respectfully addressing and refuting them.

Additional Tips

Read widely in your field: Analyze how successful papers are structured and how arguments are developed.

Revise relentlessly: Give yourself time to step away from your draft and return with fresh eyes.

Seek Feedback: Ask peers, instructors, or a writing center tutor to review your work for clarity and logic.

Conclusion: Integrating the Components of Research Papers for Academic Excellence

The journey of writing a research paper is truly transformative. By mastering each component, from a rigorously crafted hypothesis to a meticulously compiled reference list, you develop the essential skills of critical thinking, communication, and scholarly inquiry. It's important to remember that these components are not isolated; they form a powerful, synergistic whole.

Let the process of writing research papers empower you. Embrace the challenge of synthesizing information, developing strong arguments, and communicating your findings with clarity and precision. Celebrate your dedication to the pursuit of knowledge and the contributions you make to your academic community and your own intellectual growth.

Try Jenni for free today

Create your first piece of content with Jenni today and never look back

How to Write a Research Paper: Parts of the Paper

• Choosing Your Topic
• Citation & Style Guides This link opens in a new window
• Critical Thinking
• Evaluating Information
• Parts of the Paper
• Writing Tips from UNC-Chapel Hill
• Librarian Contact

Parts of the Research Paper Papers should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Your introductory paragraph should grab the reader's attention, state your main idea, and indicate how you will support it. The body of the paper should expand on what you have stated in the introduction. Finally, the conclusion restates the paper's thesis and should explain what you have learned, giving a wrap up of your main ideas.

1. The Title The title should be specific and indicate the theme of the research and what ideas it addresses. Use keywords that help explain your paper's topic to the reader. Try to avoid abbreviations and jargon. Think about keywords that people would use to search for your paper and include them in your title.

2. The Abstract The abstract is used by readers to get a quick overview of your paper. Typically, they are about 200 words in length (120 words minimum to  250 words maximum). The abstract should introduce the topic and thesis, and should provide a general statement about what you have found in your research. The abstract allows you to mention each major aspect of your topic and helps readers decide whether they want to read the rest of the paper. Because it is a summary of the entire research paper, it is often written last. 

3. The Introduction The introduction should be designed to attract the reader's attention and explain the focus of the research. You will introduce your overview of the topic,  your main points of information, and why this subject is important. You can introduce the current understanding and background information about the topic. Toward the end of the introduction, you add your thesis statement, and explain how you will provide information to support your research questions. This provides the purpose and focus for the rest of the paper.

4. Thesis Statement Most papers will have a thesis statement or main idea and supporting facts/ideas/arguments. State your main idea (something of interest or something to be proven or argued for or against) as your thesis statement, and then provide your supporting facts and arguments. A thesis statement is a declarative sentence that asserts the position a paper will be taking. It also points toward the paper's development. This statement should be both specific and arguable. Generally, the thesis statement will be placed at the end of the first paragraph of your paper. The remainder of your paper will support this thesis.

Students often learn to write a thesis as a first step in the writing process, but often, after research, a writer's viewpoint may change. Therefore a thesis statement may be one of the final steps in writing. 

Examples of Thesis Statements from Purdue OWL

5. The Literature Review The purpose of the literature review is to describe past important research and how it specifically relates to the research thesis. It should be a synthesis of the previous literature and the new idea being researched. The review should examine the major theories related to the topic to date and their contributors. It should include all relevant findings from credible sources, such as academic books and peer-reviewed journal articles. You will want  to:

• Explain how the literature helps the researcher understand the topic.
• Try to show connections and any disparities between the literature.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.

More about writing a literature review. . .

6. The Discussion ​The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe what you have learned from your research. Make the reader understand why your topic is important. The discussion should always demonstrate what you have learned from your readings (and viewings) and how that learning has made the topic evolve, especially from the short description of main points in the introduction.Explain any new understanding or insights you have had after reading your articles and/or books. Paragraphs should use transitioning sentences to develop how one paragraph idea leads to the next. The discussion will always connect to the introduction, your thesis statement, and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the introduction. You want to: 

• Demonstrate critical thinking, not just reporting back facts that you gathered.
• If possible, tell how the topic has evolved over the past and give it's implications for the future.
• Fully explain your main ideas with supporting information.
• Explain why your thesis is correct giving arguments to counter points.

7. The Conclusion A concluding paragraph is a brief summary of your main ideas and restates the paper's main thesis, giving the reader the sense that the stated goal of the paper has been accomplished. What have you learned by doing this research that you didn't know before? What conclusions have you drawn? You may also want to suggest further areas of study, improvement of research possibilities, etc. to demonstrate your critical thinking regarding your research.

• << Previous: Evaluating Information
• Next: Research >>
• Last Updated: Feb 13, 2024 8:35 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ucc.edu/research_paper

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

• How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8 . We have developed and tested this theory of public involvement in research in eight diverse case studies; this has highlighted important contextual factors, in particular PI leadership, which had not previously been prominent in the literature. We have identified how this critical contextual factor shapes key mechanisms of public involvement, including the identification of a senior lead for involvement, resource allocation for involvement and facilitation of research partners. These mechanisms then lead to specific outcomes in improving the quality of research, notably recruitment strategies and materials and data collection tools and methods. We have identified a ‘virtuous circle’ of feedback to research partners on their contribution leading to their improved confidence and motivation, which facilitates their continued contribution. Following feedback from the HS&DR Board on our original application we did not seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of different mechanisms of public involvement but we did cost the different types of public involvement as discussed in Chapter 7 . A key finding is that many research projects undercost public involvement.

In our original proposal we emphasised our desire to include case studies involving young people and families with children in the research process. We recruited two studies involving parents of young children aged under 5 years, and two projects involving ‘older’ young people in the 18- to 25-years age group. We recognise that in doing this we missed studies involving children and young people aged under 18 years; in principle we would have liked to have included studies involving such children and young people, but, given the resources at our disposal and the additional resource, ethical and governance issues this would have entailed, we regretfully concluded that this would not be feasible for our study. In terms of the four studies with parental and young persons’ involvement that we did include, we have not done a separate analysis of their data, but the themes emerging from those case studies were consistent with our other case studies and contributed to our overall analysis.

In terms of the initial objectives, we successfully recruited the sample of eight diverse case studies and collected and analysed data from them (objective 1). As intended, we identified the outcomes of involvement from multiple stakeholders‘ perspectives, although we did not get as many research partners‘ perspectives as we would have liked – see limitations below (objective 2). It was more difficult than expected to track the impact of public involvement from project inception through to completion (objective 3), as all of our projects turned out to have longer time scales than our own. Even to track involvement over a stage of a case study research project proved difficult, as the research usually did not fall into neatly staged time periods and one study had no involvement activity over the study period.

Nevertheless, we were able to track seven of the eight case studies prospectively and in real time over time periods of up to 9 months, giving us an unusual window on involvement processes that have previously mainly been observed retrospectively. We were successful in comparing the contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes associated with public involvement from different stakeholders‘ perspectives and costing the different mechanisms for public involvement (objective 4). We only partly achieved our final objective of undertaking a consensus exercise among stakeholders to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach and our approach to the measurement and valuation of economic costs of public involvement in research (objective 5). A final consensus event was held, where very useful discussion and amendment of our theory of public involvement took place, and the economic approach was discussed and helpfully critiqued by participants. However, as our earlier discussions developed more fully than expected, we decided to let them continue rather than interrupt them in order to run the final exercise to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach. We did, however, test our analysis with all our case study participants by sending a draft of this final report for comment. We received a number of helpful comments and corrections but no disagreement with our overall analysis.

• What were the limitations of our study?

Realist evaluation is a relatively new approach and we recognise that there were a number of limitations to our study. We sought to follow the approach recommended by Pawson, but we acknowledge that we were not always able to do so. In particular, our theory of public involvement in research evolved over time and initially was not as tightly framed in terms of a testable hypothesis as Pawson recommends. In his latest book Pawson strongly recommends that outcomes should be measured with quantitative data, 17 but we did not do so; we were not aware of the existence of quantitative data or tools that would enable us to collect such data to answer our research questions. Even in terms of qualitative data, we did not capture as much information on outcomes as we initially envisaged. There were several reasons for this. The most important was that capturing outcomes in public involvement is easier the more operational the focus of involvement, and more difficult the more strategic the involvement. Thus, it was relatively easy to see the impact of a patient panel on the redesign of a recruitment leaflet but harder to capture the impact of research partners in a multidisciplinary team discussion of research design.

We also found it was sometimes more difficult to engage research partners as participants in our research than researchers or research managers. On reflection this is not surprising. Research partners are generally motivated to take part in research relevant to their lived experience of a health condition or situation, whereas our research was quite detached from their lived experience; in addition people had many constraints on their time, so getting involved in our research as well as their own was likely to be a burden too far for some. Researchers clearly also face significant time pressures but they had a more direct interest in our research, as they are obliged to engage with public involvement to satisfy research funders such as the NIHR. Moreover, researchers were being paid by their employers for their time during interviews with us, while research partners were not paid by us and usually not paid by their research teams. Whatever the reasons, we had less response from research partners than researchers or research managers, particularly for the third round of data collection; thus we have fewer data on outcomes from research partners‘ perspectives and we need to be aware of a possible selection bias towards more engaged research partners. Such a bias could have implications for our findings; for example payment might have been a more important motivating factor for less engaged advisory group members.

There were a number of practical difficulties we encountered. One challenge was when to recruit the case studies. We recruited four of our eight case studies prior to the full application, but this was more than 1 year before our project started and 15 months or more before data collection began. In this intervening period, we found that the time scales of some of the case studies were no longer ideal for our project and we faced the choice of whether to continue with them, although this timing was not ideal, or seek at a late moment to recruit alternative ones. One of our case studies ultimately undertook no involvement activity over the study period, so we obtained fewer data from it, and it contributed relatively little to our analysis. Similarly, one of the four case studies we recruited later experienced some delays itself in beginning and so we had a more limited period for data collection than initially envisaged. Research governance approvals took much longer than expected, particularly as we had to take three of our research partners, who were going to collect data within NHS projects, through the research passport process, which essentially truncated our data collection period from 1 year to 9 months. Even if we had had the full year initially envisaged for data collection, our conclusion with hindsight was that this was insufficiently long. To compare initial plans and intentions for involvement with the reality of what actually happened required a longer time period than a year for most of our case studies.

In the light of the importance we have placed on the commitment of PIs, there is an issue of potential selection bias in the recruitment of our sample. As our sampling strategy explicitly involved a networking approach to PIs of projects where we thought some significant public involvement was taking place, we were likely (as we did) to recruit enthusiasts and, at worst, those non-committed who were at least open to the potential value of public involvement. There were, unsurprisingly, no highly sceptical PIs in our sample. We have no data therefore on how public involvement may work in research where the PI is sceptical but may feel compelled to undertake involvement because of funder requirements or other factors.

• What would we do differently next time?

If we were to design this study again, there are a number of changes we would make. Most importantly we would go for a longer time period to be able to capture involvement through the whole research process from initial design through to dissemination. We would seek to recruit far more potential case studies in principle, so that we had greater choice of which to proceed with once our study began in earnest. We would include case studies from the application stage to capture the important early involvement of research partners in the initial design period. It might be preferable to research a smaller number of case studies, allowing a more in-depth ethnographic approach. Although challenging, it would be very informative to seek to sample sceptical PIs. This might require a brief screening exercise of a larger group of PIs on their attitudes to and experience of public involvement.

The economic evaluation was challenging in a number of ways, particularly in seeking to obtain completed resource logs from case study research partners. Having a 2-week data collection period was also problematic in a field such as public involvement, where activity may be very episodic and infrequent. Thus, collecting economic data alongside other case study data in a more integrated way, and particularly with interviews and more ethnographic observation of case study activities, might be advantageous. The new budgeting tool developed by INVOLVE and the MHRN may provide a useful resource for future economic evaluations. 23

We have learned much from the involvement of research partners in our research team and, although many aspects of our approach worked well, there are some things we would do differently in future. Even though we included substantial resources for research partner involvement in all aspects of our study, we underestimated how time-consuming such full involvement would be. We were perhaps overambitious in trying to ensure such full involvement with the number of research partners and the number and complexity of the case studies. We were also perhaps naive in expecting all the research partners to play the same role in the team; different research partners came with different experiences and skills, and, like most of our case studies, we might have been better to be less prescriptive and allow the roles to develop more organically within the project.

• Implications for research practice and funding

If one of the objectives of R&D policy is to increase the extent and effectiveness of public involvement in research, then a key implication of this research is the importance of influencing PIs to value public involvement in research or to delegate to other senior colleagues in leading on involvement in their research. Training is unlikely to be the key mechanism here; senior researchers are much more likely to be influenced by peers or by their personal experience of the benefits of public involvement. Early career researchers may be shaped by training but again peer learning and culture may be more influential. For those researchers sceptical or agnostic about public involvement, the requirement of funders is a key factor that is likely to make them engage with the involvement agenda. Therefore, funders need to scrutinise the track record of research teams on public involvement to ascertain whether there is any evidence of commitment or leadership on involvement.

One of the findings of the economic analysis was that PIs have consistently underestimated the costs of public involvement in their grant applications. Clearly the field will benefit from the guidance and budgeting tool recently disseminated by MHRN and INVOLVE. It was also notable that there was a degree of variation in the real costs of public involvement and that effective involvement is not necessarily costly. Different models of involvement incur different costs and researchers need to be made aware of the costs and benefits of these different options.

One methodological lesson we learned was the impact that conducting this research had on some participants’ reflection on the impact of public involvement. Particularly for research staff, the questions we asked sometimes made them reflect upon what they were doing and change aspects of their approach to involvement. Thus, the more the NIHR and other funders can build reporting, audit and other forms of evaluation on the impact of public involvement directly into their processes with PIs, the more likely such questioning might stimulate similar reflection.

• Recommendations for further research

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge around public involvement in research that follow from our findings, and would benefit from further research, including realist evaluation to extend and further test the theory we have developed here:

• In-depth exploration of how PIs become committed to public involvement and how to influence agnostic or sceptical PIs would be very helpful. Further research might compare, for example, training with peer-influencing strategies in engendering PI commitment. Research could explore the leadership role of other research team members, including research partners, and how collective leadership might support effective public involvement.
• More methodological work is needed on how to robustly capture the impact and outcomes of public involvement in research (building as well on the PiiAF work of Popay et al. 51 ), including further economic analysis and exploration of impact when research partners are integral to research teams.
• Research to develop approaches and carry out a full cost–benefit analysis of public involvement in research would be beneficial. Although methodologically challenging, it would be very useful to conduct some longer-term studies which sought to quantify the impact of public involvement on such key indicators as participant recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
• It would also be helpful to capture qualitatively the experiences and perspectives of research partners who have had mixed or negative experiences, since they may be less likely than enthusiasts to volunteer to participate in studies of involvement in research such as ours. Similarly, further research might explore the (relatively rare) experiences of marginalised and seldom-heard groups involved in research.
• Payment for public involvement in research remains a contested issue with strongly held positions for and against; it would be helpful to further explore the value research partners and researchers place on payment and its effectiveness for enhancing involvement in and impact on research.
• A final relatively narrow but important question that we identified after data collection had finished is: what is the impact of the long periods of relative non-involvement following initial periods of more intense involvement for research partners in some types of research, particularly clinical trials?

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 9, Conclusions and recommendations for future research.
• PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in rese... Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

Organizing the Parts of a Research Paper

Organizing the parts of a research paper is an essential step for successful academic writing. A well-structured and organized research paper should contain distinct components that aid in guiding readers to gain a better understanding of the main points, arguments, and evidence presented within it. This article will discuss the structure and organization of various sections found in typical research papers; including introduction, body paragraphs/sections, conclusion, and references (if applicable). Furthermore, this article will provide practical tips on how authors can effectively organize their written material so as to ensure maximum clarity when communicating their message(s) to an audience.

I. Introduction to Research Paper Organization

Ii. identifying the different parts of a research paper, iii. creating an outline for your research paper, iv. organizing the sources within your research paper, v. writing up each section of the research project, vi. editing and refining your finished work vii. conclusion on the benefits of a well-organizedresearchpaper.

Understanding the Basic Layout of Research Paper Structure Organizing a research paper is an intricate task that requires careful attention to detail. It is not just about writing down ideas on paper; it’s about arranging them in a way that captures the reader’s interest and logically progresses through each topic or argument. The order of parts within a research paper usually follows this pattern: title page, abstract, introduction, methods/ materials, results, discussion/conclusion and references. The introduction sets out what you plan to achieve with your work – it should be clear from reading the introduction exactly what will be covered in the remainder of your paper. By providing context for readers by introducing topics relevant to the subject matter at hand as well as clearly outlining any hypotheses being tested or explored helps set up expectations for both yourself and those who are following along with your findings. This can also include explanations into how other authors have approached similar topics as well various aspects related to why certain paths were chosen over others during data collection processes.

The research paper is the culmination of a long process that begins with an idea and ends with clear conclusions. Knowing how to identify its various parts can make navigating the structure of this important document easier for authors, reviewers, and readers alike.

• Abstract: This section typically provides a brief summary of your paper’s purpose or findings. Abstracts help orient readers to what’s in store when they delve into the rest of your work.
• Introduction: Here you will set up your argument by introducing relevant background information about topics related to it. The introduction serves as context for everything else that follows.

Conclusion : This is an overview summarizing what was learned through exploring literature , empirical data , theoretical frameworks etc . It also discusses potential implications for future study or further understanding on the subject matter .

An outline is a fundamental component of any research paper, providing structure for the arguments and evidence you will present. It allows you to organize your thoughts before committing them to paper and serves as a roadmap for the direction your essay will take.

Creating an outline can be broken down into five simple steps:

• Step 1. Familiarize yourself with key concepts.
• Step 2. Take notes on relevant topics that could serve as subheadings in your argumentative essay’s body paragraphs or sections in other types of papers.

Finally, adjust heading levels accordingly according to their hierarchical relationship while considering what makes sense logically from start-to-finish within given context (e.g., Introduction ➝ Background Information➝ Experimental Methods ➝ Results & Discussion➝ Conclusion). This way students can clearly illustrate how each part contributes towards supporting overall research topic making it easier to write later on since they know exactly what goes where!

When it comes to organizing the sources for your research paper, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, the following tips and tricks can help you create an organized paper that meets academic standards:

A well thought out structure will ensure that all of your sources are properly incorporated into the body of your essay in order from most relevant to least relevant or vice versa. Make sure this follows logically after introducing any new concepts or ideas within each section and includes citations when appropriate.

Depending on how much information needs to be included from a certain source, you may want to include entire paragraphs dedicated to them as part of their discussion or quote specific sentences directly where necessary; either way make sure that attribution is always given through proper citation methods so readers know who originally made the statements being used in support of particular arguments or perspectives.

When writing a research project, it is important to write up each section in the correct order. As such, the following elements should be included:

• Abstract : This summarises your entire paper and should include key points from all of its sections.
• Introduction : Here you need to introduce your main ideas and provide an overview of the background information related to them.

The next step in crafting a top-notch paper is constructing the body content. Depending on how detailed or lengthy it needs to be, this could span multiple subsections which need specific attention. These can include areas like literature review, methodology and results amongst others – make sure not to forget anything! Finally comes the conclusion – tying everything together with a summation of what was covered as well as any conclusions that were drawn along with suggestions for further research in that field. Once all parts have been written up carefully, proofread at least once more before submitting! Paying particular attention to grammatical accuracy will ensure that readers are able understand without difficulty while making a great impression too!

Editing and Refining Your Finished Work The quality of your research paper is determined by its accuracy, relevance to the topic, consistency with other sources, and overall structure. Once you have collected information from reputable sources on your topic and organized it into an effective research paper order of parts, you need to edit for errors before submitting the final product. In addition to mistakes such as incorrect grammar or spelling that can easily be corrected through a spell checker program or peer review session; there are additional elements that should be considered when refining a well-structured document:

• Checking for factual errors in data
• Incorporating up-to-date statistics & information

Varying sentence structures throughout the document in order to ensure readability Consistent formatting style including font size/style selection And utilization of proper punctuation marks throughout Each section must also support one another effectively while developing key points related directly back towards your main thesis statement. Once any necessary changes are made within each component of this process; You will have successfully created a polished and professional research paper that readers will find both compelling & convincing!

In conclusion, this article has demonstrated the need to organize and structure a research paper properly. An effective strategy is to break it down into various parts and ensure each one follows accepted guidelines for academic writing. By taking the time upfront to plan out your document, you will save yourself valuable time in both understanding how these elements fit together and ensuring they are coherently presented when published or submitted for review. It is also important that authors select topics with enough depth of coverage so as not to overburden themselves while managing the overall process within deadlines. With careful planning, thoughtful construction, attention to detail regarding grammar/spelling/punctuation – there should be no impediment from constructing a well-crafted piece of scholarly work deserving recognition by peers across academia!

• Privacy Policy

Home » Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Future Research

Definition:

Future research refers to investigations and studies that are yet to be conducted, and are aimed at expanding our understanding of a particular subject or area of interest. Future research is typically based on the current state of knowledge and seeks to address unanswered questions, gaps in knowledge, and new areas of inquiry.

How to Write Future Research in Thesis

Here are some steps to help you write effectively about future research in your thesis :

• Identify a research gap: Before you start writing about future research, identify the areas that need further investigation. Look for research gaps and inconsistencies in the literature , and note them down.
• Specify research questions : Once you have identified a research gap, create a list of research questions that you would like to explore in future research. These research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to your thesis.
• Discuss limitations: Be sure to discuss any limitations of your research that may require further exploration. This will help to highlight the need for future research and provide a basis for further investigation.
• Suggest methodologies: Provide suggestions for methodologies that could be used to explore the research questions you have identified. Discuss the pros and cons of each methodology and how they would be suitable for your research.
• Explain significance: Explain the significance of the research you have proposed, and how it will contribute to the field. This will help to justify the need for future research and provide a basis for further investigation.
• Provide a timeline : Provide a timeline for the proposed research , indicating when each stage of the research would be conducted. This will help to give a sense of the practicalities involved in conducting the research.
• Conclusion : Summarize the key points you have made about future research and emphasize the importance of exploring the research questions you have identified.

Examples of Future Research in Thesis

SomeExamples of Future Research in Thesis are as follows:

Future Research:

Although this study provides valuable insights into the effects of social media on self-esteem, there are several avenues for future research that could build upon our findings. Firstly, our sample consisted solely of college students, so it would be beneficial to extend this research to other age groups and demographics. Additionally, our study focused only on the impact of social media use on self-esteem, but there are likely other factors that influence how social media affects individuals, such as personality traits and social support. Future research could examine these factors in greater depth. Lastly, while our study looked at the short-term effects of social media use on self-esteem, it would be interesting to explore the long-term effects over time. This could involve conducting longitudinal studies that follow individuals over a period of several years to assess changes in self-esteem and social media use.

While this study provides important insights into the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance among college students, there are several avenues for future research that could further advance our understanding of this topic.

• This study relied on self-reported sleep patterns, which may be subject to reporting biases. Future research could benefit from using objective measures of sleep, such as actigraphy or polysomnography, to more accurately assess sleep duration and quality.
• This study focused on academic performance as the outcome variable, but there may be other important outcomes to consider, such as mental health or well-being. Future research could explore the relationship between sleep patterns and these other outcomes.
• This study only included college students, and it is unclear if these findings generalize to other populations, such as high school students or working adults. Future research could investigate whether the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance varies across different populations.
• Fourth, this study did not explore the potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance. Future research could investigate the role of factors such as cognitive functioning, motivation, and stress in this relationship.

Overall, there is a need for continued research on the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance, as this has important implications for the health and well-being of students.

Further research could investigate the long-term effects of mindfulness-based interventions on mental health outcomes among individuals with chronic pain. A longitudinal study could be conducted to examine the sustainability of mindfulness practices in reducing pain-related distress and improving psychological well-being over time. The study could also explore the potential mediating and moderating factors that influence the relationship between mindfulness and mental health outcomes, such as emotional regulation, pain catastrophizing, and social support.

Purpose of Future Research in Thesis

Here are some general purposes of future research that you might consider including in your thesis:

• To address limitations: Your research may have limitations or unanswered questions that could be addressed by future studies. Identify these limitations and suggest potential areas for further research.
• To extend the research : You may have found interesting results in your research, but future studies could help to extend or replicate your findings. Identify these areas where future research could help to build on your work.
• To explore related topics : Your research may have uncovered related topics that were outside the scope of your study. Suggest areas where future research could explore these related topics in more depth.
• To compare different approaches : Your research may have used a particular methodology or approach, but there may be other approaches that could be compared to your approach. Identify these other approaches and suggest areas where future research could compare and contrast them.
• To test hypotheses : Your research may have generated hypotheses that could be tested in future studies. Identify these hypotheses and suggest areas where future research could test them.
• To address practical implications : Your research may have practical implications that could be explored in future studies. Identify these practical implications and suggest areas where future research could investigate how to apply them in practice.

Applications of Future Research

Some examples of applications of future research that you could include in your thesis are:

• Development of new technologies or methods: If your research involves the development of new technologies or methods, you could discuss potential applications of these innovations in future research or practical settings. For example, if you have developed a new drug delivery system, you could speculate about how it might be used in the treatment of other diseases or conditions.
• Extension of your research: If your research only scratches the surface of a particular topic, you could suggest potential avenues for future research that could build upon your findings. For example, if you have studied the effects of a particular drug on a specific population, you could suggest future research that explores the drug’s effects on different populations or in combination with other treatments.
• Investigation of related topics: If your research is part of a larger field or area of inquiry, you could suggest potential research topics that are related to your work. For example, if you have studied the effects of climate change on a particular species, you could suggest future research that explores the impacts of climate change on other species or ecosystems.
• Testing of hypotheses: If your research has generated hypotheses or theories, you could suggest potential experiments or studies that could test these hypotheses in future research. For example, if you have proposed a new theory about the mechanisms of a particular disease, you could suggest experiments that could test this theory in other populations or in different disease contexts.

Advantage of Future Research

Including future research in a thesis has several advantages:

• Demonstrates critical thinking: Including future research shows that the author has thought deeply about the topic and recognizes its limitations. It also demonstrates that the author is interested in advancing the field and is not satisfied with only providing a narrow analysis of the issue at hand.
• Provides a roadmap for future research : Including future research can help guide researchers in the field by suggesting areas that require further investigation. This can help to prevent researchers from repeating the same work and can lead to more efficient use of resources.
• Shows engagement with the field : By including future research, the author demonstrates their engagement with the field and their understanding of ongoing debates and discussions. This can be especially important for students who are just entering the field and want to show their commitment to ongoing research.
• I ncreases the impact of the thesis : Including future research can help to increase the impact of the thesis by highlighting its potential implications for future research and practical applications. This can help to generate interest in the work and attract attention from researchers and practitioners in the field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Conclusions, Practical Implications, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Research

• First Online: 23 August 2022

Cite this chapter

• Breno B. Silva 3  

Part of the book series: Second Language Learning and Teaching ((SLLT))

346 Accesses

This chapter presents overall conclusions from the three studies reported in this book. It begins with Study 1 (reported in Chap. 5 ). The main purpose of this study was to find an assessment tool that may be useful for university placement purposes without much distortion in scores due the presence of cognates in tests. I will briefly remind the reader of the aims and design of this study, summarize the findings, and lay out some implications for pedagogy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alamargot, D., Plane, S., Lambert, E., & Chesnet, D. (2010). Using eye and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise: Case studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th grader, graduate student, and professional writer. Reading and Writing, 23 , 853–888.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, D. (2018). Cognate frequency and assessment of second language lexical knowledge. International Journal of Bilingualism , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918781063

Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language. Journal of Memory and Language, 57 , 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004

Anson, C. M., & Schwegler, R. A. (2012). Tracking the mind’s eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first-century writing and reading processes. College Composition and Communication, 64 (1), 151–171.

Google Scholar  

Byrd, P., & Coxhead, A. (2010). On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic writing and in the teaching of EAP (Vol. 5, pp. 31–64). University of Sydney Papers in TESOL.

Cambridge University Press. (2020). Cambridge dictionary [online]. Retrieved from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ . Accessed November 06, 2020

Chaffin, R., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Learning new word meanings from context: A study of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27 (1), 225–235.

Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., Saricaoglu, A., Torrance, M., & Feng, H.-H. (2019). Combined deployable keystroke logging and eyetracking for investigating L2 writing fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 , 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900007X

Comesaña, M., Soares, A. P., Ferré, P., Romero, J., Guasch, M., & García-Chico, T. (2015). Facilitative effect of cognate words vanishes when reducing the orthographic overlap: The role of stimuli list composition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (3), 614–635.

Conklin, K., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2016). Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research. Second Language Research, 32 (3), 453–467.

Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning, 47 (4), 671–718.

Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36 (5), 570–590.

De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction . Psychology Press.

Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-linguistic similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 , 284–301.

Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (4), 663–679.

Elgort, I. (2013). Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the vocabulary size test. Language Testing, 30 (2), 253–272.

Elgort, I., Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., & Van Assche, E. (2017). Contextual word learning during reading in a second language: An eye-movement study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40 , 341–366.

Godfroid, A., Ahn, J., Choi, I., Ballard, L., Cui, Y., Johnston, S., Lee, S., Sarkar, A., & Yoon, H.-J. (2018). Incidental vocabulary learning in a natural reading context: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21 (3), 563–584.

Godfroid, A., & Schmidtke, J. (2013). What do eye movements tell us about awareness? A triangulation of eye-movement data, verbal reports, and vocabulary learning scores. In J. M. Bergsleithner, S. N. Frota & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 183–205). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Gohar, M. J., Rahmanian, M., & Soleimani, H. (2018). Technique feature analysis or involvement load hypothesis: Estimating their predictive power in vocabulary learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47 , 859–869.

Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80 (3), 327–339.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27 , 4–21.

Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 , 150–169.

Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58 (2), 285–325.

Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., Oon, S. P., & Storch, N. (2015). What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28 , 39–52.

Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2014). Does the writing of undergraduate ESL students develop after one year of study in an English-medium university? Assessing Writing, 21 , 1–17.

Lai, M.-L., Tsai, M.-J., Yang, F.-Y., Hsu, C.-Y., Liu, T.-C., Lee, S.W.-Y., Lee, M.-H., Chiou, G.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10 , 90–115.

Latif, M. A. (2008). A state-of-the-art review of the real-time computer-aided study of the writing process. International Journal of English Studies, 8 (1), 29–50.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 1–26.

Laufer, B., & Mclean, S. (2016). Loanwords and vocabulary size test scores: A case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13 (3), 202–217.

Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22 (1), 15–30. Retrieved in March 2018 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ887873.pdf

Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30 (3), 358–392.

Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Inputlog . Retrieved from: https://www.inputlog.net/ . Accessed November 27, 2020.

Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (2), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014875

Milton, J., Wade, J., & Hopkins, N. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral competence in a foreign language. In R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, & M. D. M. Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 83–97). Multilingual Matters.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mochida, A., & Harrington, M. (2006). The yes/no test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 23 (1), 73–98.

Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2015). Cross-language activation of morphological relatives in cognates: The role of orthographic overlap and task-related processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9 (16), 1–18.

Nation, I. S. P. (2013) Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31 (7), 9–13.

Nesi, H., & Haill, R. (2002). A study of dictionary use by international students at a British university. International Journal of Lexicography, 15 (4), 277–305.

Otwinowska, A., Foryś-Nogala, M., Kobosko, W., & Szewczyk, J. (2020). Learning orthographic cognates and non-cognates in the classroom: Does awareness of cross linguistic similarity matter? Language Learning , 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12390

Otwinowska, A., & Szewczyk, J. M. (2019). The more similar the better? Factors in learning cognates, false cognates and non-cognate words. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (8), 974–991.

Paribakht, T. S., & Webb, S. (2016). The relationship between academic vocabulary coverage and scores on a standardized English proficiency test. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21 , 121–132.

Petrescu, M. C., Helms-Park, R., & Dronjic, V. (2017). The impact of frequency and register on cognate facilitation: Comparing Romanian and Vietnamese speakers on the vocabulary levels test. English for Specific Purposes, 47 , 15–25.

Roberts, L., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2013). Using eye-tracking to investigate topics in L2 acquisition and L2 processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 , 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000861

Rott, S. (2005). Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17 (2), 95–124.

Sabbaghan, S. (2013). How noticing is affected by replay of writing process during stimulated recall. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 83 , 629–633.

Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3), 329–363.

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual . Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31 (4), 487–512.

Szarkowska, A., & Gerber-Morón, O. (2018). Viewers can keep up with fast subtitles: Evidence from eye movements. PLoS ONE, 13 (6), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199331

Tahmasbi, M., & Farvardin, M. T. (2017). Probing the effects of task types on EFL learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge: The case of involvement load hypothesis. SAGE Open , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017730596

Teng, M. F. (2020). Retention of new words learned incidentally through reading: Word exposure frequency, L1 marginal glosses, and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 24 (6), 785–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829026

Torrance, M., Johansson, R., Johansson, V., & Wengelin, A. (2016). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: An eye-movement study. Psychological Research, 80 , 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0683-8

Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Van Weijen, D. (2009). Keystroke logging in writing research: Observing writing processes with Inputlog. German as a Foreign Language Journal, 2 (3), 41–64.

Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 , 287–307.

Williams, R. S., & Morris, R. K. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16 (2), 312–339.

Zou, D. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21 (1), 54–75.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Breno B. Silva

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Breno B. Silva .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

B. Silva, B. (2022). Conclusions, Practical Implications, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Research. In: Writing to Learn Academic Words. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06505-7_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06505-7_9

Published : 23 August 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-06504-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-06505-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Research Paper >

Parts of a Research Paper

One of the most important aspects of science is ensuring that you get all the parts of the written research paper in the right order.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Outline Examples
• Example of a Paper
• Write a Hypothesis
• Introduction

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Write a Research Paper
• 2 Writing a Paper
• 3.1 Write an Outline
• 3.2 Outline Examples
• 4.1 Thesis Statement
• 4.2 Write a Hypothesis
• 5.2 Abstract
• 5.3 Introduction
• 5.4 Methods
• 5.5 Results
• 5.6 Discussion
• 5.7 Conclusion
• 5.8 Bibliography
• 6.1 Table of Contents
• 6.2 Acknowledgements
• 6.3 Appendix
• 7.1 In Text Citations
• 7.2 Footnotes
• 7.3.1 Floating Blocks
• 7.4 Example of a Paper
• 7.5 Example of a Paper 2
• 7.6.1 Citations
• 7.7.1 Writing Style
• 7.7.2 Citations
• 8.1.1 Sham Peer Review
• 8.1.2 Advantages
• 8.1.3 Disadvantages
• 8.2 Publication Bias
• 8.3.1 Journal Rejection
• 9.1 Article Writing
• 9.2 Ideas for Topics

You may have finished the best research project on earth but, if you do not write an interesting and well laid out paper, then nobody is going to take your findings seriously.

The main thing to remember with any research paper is that it is based on an hourglass structure. It begins with general information and undertaking a literature review , and becomes more specific as you nail down a research problem and hypothesis .

Finally, it again becomes more general as you try to apply your findings to the world at general.

Whilst there are a few differences between the various disciplines, with some fields placing more emphasis on certain parts than others, there is a basic underlying structure.

These steps are the building blocks of constructing a good research paper. This section outline how to lay out the parts of a research paper, including the various experimental methods and designs.

The principles for literature review and essays of all types follow the same basic principles.

Reference List

For many students, writing the introduction is the first part of the process, setting down the direction of the paper and laying out exactly what the research paper is trying to achieve.

For others, the introduction is the last thing written, acting as a quick summary of the paper. As long as you have planned a good structure for the parts of a research paper, both approaches are acceptable and it is a matter of preference.

A good introduction generally consists of three distinct parts:

• You should first give a general presentation of the research problem.
• You should then lay out exactly what you are trying to achieve with this particular research project.
• You should then state your own position.

Ideally, you should try to give each section its own paragraph, but this will vary given the overall length of the paper.

1) General Presentation

Look at the benefits to be gained by the research or why the problem has not been solved yet. Perhaps nobody has thought about it, or maybe previous research threw up some interesting leads that the previous researchers did not follow up.

Another researcher may have uncovered some interesting trends, but did not manage to reach the significance level , due to experimental error or small sample sizes .

2) Purpose of the Paper

The research problem does not have to be a statement, but must at least imply what you are trying to find.

Many writers prefer to place the thesis statement or hypothesis here, which is perfectly acceptable, but most include it in the last sentences of the introduction, to give the reader a fuller picture.

3) A Statement of Intent From the Writer

The idea is that somebody will be able to gain an overall view of the paper without needing to read the whole thing. Literature reviews are time-consuming enough, so give the reader a concise idea of your intention before they commit to wading through pages of background.

In this section, you look to give a context to the research, including any relevant information learned during your literature review. You are also trying to explain why you chose this area of research, attempting to highlight why it is necessary. The second part should state the purpose of the experiment and should include the research problem. The third part should give the reader a quick summary of the form that the parts of the research paper is going to take and should include a condensed version of the discussion.

This should be the easiest part of the paper to write, as it is a run-down of the exact design and methodology used to perform the research. Obviously, the exact methodology varies depending upon the exact field and type of experiment .

There is a big methodological difference between the apparatus based research of the physical sciences and the methods and observation methods of social sciences. However, the key is to ensure that another researcher would be able to replicate the experiment to match yours as closely as possible, but still keeping the section concise.

You can assume that anybody reading your paper is familiar with the basic methods, so try not to explain every last detail. For example, an organic chemist or biochemist will be familiar with chromatography, so you only need to highlight the type of equipment used rather than explaining the whole process in detail.

In the case of a survey , if you have too many questions to cover in the method, you can always include a copy of the questionnaire in the appendix . In this case, make sure that you refer to it.

This is probably the most variable part of any research paper, and depends on the results and aims of the experiment.

For quantitative research , it is a presentation of the numerical results and data, whereas for qualitative research it should be a broader discussion of trends, without going into too much detail.

For research generating a lot of results , then it is better to include tables or graphs of the analyzed data and leave the raw data in the appendix, so that a researcher can follow up and check your calculations.

A commentary is essential to linking the results together, rather than just displaying isolated and unconnected charts and figures.

It can be quite difficult to find a good balance between the results and the discussion section, because some findings, especially in a quantitative or descriptive experiment , will fall into a grey area. Try to avoid repeating yourself too often.

It is best to try to find a middle path, where you give a general overview of the data and then expand on it in the discussion - you should try to keep your own opinions and interpretations out of the results section, saving that for the discussion later on.

This is where you elaborate on your findings, and explain what you found, adding your own personal interpretations.

Ideally, you should link the discussion back to the introduction, addressing each point individually.

It’s important to make sure that every piece of information in your discussion is directly related to the thesis statement , or you risk cluttering your findings. In keeping with the hourglass principle, you can expand on the topic later in the conclusion .

The conclusion is where you build on your discussion and try to relate your findings to other research and to the world at large.

In a short research paper, it may be a paragraph or two, or even a few lines.

In a dissertation, it may well be the most important part of the entire paper - not only does it describe the results and discussion in detail, it emphasizes the importance of the results in the field, and ties it in with the previous research.

Some research papers require a recommendations section, postulating the further directions of the research, as well as highlighting how any flaws affected the results. In this case, you should suggest any improvements that could be made to the research design .

No paper is complete without a reference list , documenting all the sources that you used for your research. This should be laid out according to APA , MLA or other specified format, allowing any interested researcher to follow up on the research.

One habit that is becoming more common, especially with online papers, is to include a reference to your own paper on the final page. Lay this out in MLA, APA and Chicago format, allowing anybody referencing your paper to copy and paste it.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Jun 5, 2009). Parts of a Research Paper. Retrieved May 18, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/parts-of-a-research-paper

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Check out the official book.

Learn how to construct, style and format an Academic paper and take your skills to the next level.

(also available as ebook )

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• 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

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Quiz 4, Practical Research 2 (2nd Quarter)

Quiz   by kim ciara santos.

Feel free to use or edit a copy

includes Teacher and Student dashboards

Measure skills from any curriculum

Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.

• edit the questions
• save a copy for later
• start a class game
• automatically assign follow-up activities based on students’ scores
• assign as homework
• share a link with colleagues
• print as a bubble sheet
• Q 1 / 15 Score 0 Which of the following parts of a research paper should be in the concluding part of the research paper? 29 Summary of research methodology, conclusions, and recommendations. Summary of findings, conclusion, and recommendations. Summary of research methodology, scope and limitations, and recommendations. Summary of findings, research methodology, and recommendations.

Our brand new solo games combine with your quiz, on the same screen

Correct quiz answers unlock more play!

• Q 1 Which of the following parts of a research paper should be in the concluding part of the research paper? Summary of research methodology, conclusions, and recommendations. Summary of findings, conclusion, and recommendations. Summary of research methodology, scope and limitations, and recommendations. Summary of findings, research methodology, and recommendations. 60 s
• Q 2 Which of the following statements best describes a conclusion? Discuss the methodology of the study. Discuss the results and limitations about the topic under study. Makes logical connections between the various parts of the arguments starting from the hypotheses. Discuss relevant literature. 60 s
• Q 3 Which of the following contents of the summary of findings is considered as the most important? Research findings from which the conclusion will be derived. Brief restatement of the research methodology. List of research questions and hypothesis. Overall research problem of the study. 60 s
• Q 4 Which of the following statements is addressed or answered by your research conclusion? The hesitations of the researcher. Every research questions you have in your research study. The questions of the field experts. The queries of the previous researchers 60 s
• Q 5 Which of the following suggestions should you use in writing your conclusion? A clear and simple language High jargon sentences Highfalutin words Mathematical symbols 60 s
• Q 6 The following statements show how to draw a logical conclusion EXCEPT: Demonstrate the importance of your ideas. Present the last word on the issues or gaps raised in your paper. Draw the inclusion and exclusion of research variables. Summarize your thoughts and convey the larger significance of your study. 60 s
• Q 7 What is the first thing to do in drawing a logical conclusion? Introduce possible new or expanded ways of thinking about the research problem. Discuss of the feasibility of the proposed policy. Identify the relevant data that can be utilized. Discussion of the benefits of the study. 60 s
• Q 8 Which of the following parts of the research paper serves as a practical suggestion for future researchers? Recommendations of the Study Abstract of the Study Conclusion of the Study Summary of Findings 60 s
• Q 9 Which of the following statements is the main purpose of recommendations of your research study? Determined the main variables of the study. Discuss the benefits of the participants. Provide a beneficial guide to resolve certain issues that can possibly result in a beneficial outcome. Explain the methodology of your study. 60 s
• Q 10 In writing the recommendations, where should the researcher based its suggestions? Conceptual Framework of the Study Conclusions of the Study Abstract of the Study Scope and Delimitation of the Study 60 s
• Q 11 In presenting the conclusion of the study, what should be the guide of the researcher? Statistical Tests Used Scope and Delimitation of the Study Research Questions of the Study Methodology of the Study 60 s
• Q 12 Why does the conclusion important in the research process? It summarizes the principal features of the study. It provides explanation of the concept or construct of the conceptual framework. It addresses other researchers who ay want to pursue similar study. It improves the pertinent variables of the investigation undertaken. 60 s
• Q 13 The conclusion is the first, thus, the most important part of the research study. Maybe True False Cannot be determined 60 s
• Q 14 As a student researcher, drawing logical conclusions and formulating unbiased recommendations have equal importance in the development of the academic excellence of the institution. Cannot be determined True False Maybe 60 s
• Q 15 Research has standards that need to follow and apply in the researching process. Cannot be determined Maybe True False 60 s

Teachers give this quiz to your class

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, developments and implications of tourism information technology: a horizon 2050 paper.

Tourism Review

ISSN : 1660-5373

Article publication date: 8 May 2024

This study aims to provide an overview of the development of tourism information technology from a macro perspective of the chronological lineage of tourism and information technology from its origins to the present. This study also explores the progression of tourism information technology, its implications and its future directions based on a macro environmental analysis framework comprising political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal perspectives.

Design/methodology/approach

This study serves as a valuable connection between theoretical knowledge and practical application, combining the experiences of academic researchers and industry practitioners to thoroughly examine the progress and developments in tourism information technology. This research also identifies critical points in the domain to provide a unified and comprehensive explanation that aligns with the current research findings.

This research reveals the continuous timeline of tourism and information technology development. It discusses the origins, progress and interactions of tourism and information technology, revealing the structural political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal drivers of tourism information technology. This paper also presents suggestions for future agendas on the basis of a compendium and outlook of influences and implications for the domain.

Originality/value

Findings of this study set the foundation for a comprehensive analysis of the transformative influence of information technology on tourism and provide a contextual framework and insightful future agenda guide for subsequent academic and industry exploration and analysis of tourism information technology.

本文从宏观视角回顾了旅游信息技术从起源至今的发展历程。研究基于政治、经济、社会、技术、环境和法律 维度的综合环境分析框架, 探讨了旅游信息技术的发展、影响和未来方向。

本研究构建了理论知识和实际应用之间的重要纽带, 结合学术研究人员和行业从业者的经验, 深入审视了旅游信息技术的进展和发展。它还确定了该领域的关键要点, 以提供一个与现有研究成果相互呼应的统一且全面的解释。

这项研究揭示了旅游和信息技术发展的连续时间线进程, 讨论了旅游和信息技术的起源、进展和互动, 揭示了政治、经济、社会、技术、环境和法律驱动因素对旅游信息技术的结构性影响。本文还在对该领域的影响和启示进行梳理和展望的基础上, 提出了关于未来议程的建议。

本研究的结果为全面分析信息技术对旅游的变革性影响奠定了基础, 并为学界和业界后续对旅游信息技术的探索和分析提供了背景框架和具有洞察力的未来议程指南。

Esta investigación ofrece una visión general del desarrollo de la tecnología de la información turística desde una perspectiva macro de la evolución cronológica del turismo y la tecnología de la información desde sus orígenes hasta la actualidad. Explora el progreso de la tecnología de la información turística, sus implicaciones y sus futuras direcciones basándose en un marco de análisis macroambiental que comprende perspectivas políticas, económicas, sociales, tecnológicas, medioambientales y legales.

Diseño/metodología/enfoque

Este estudio conecta el conocimiento teórico y la aplicación práctica combinando las experiencias de investigadores académicos y profesionales del sector, para examinar a fondo los avances y la evolución de la tecnología de la información turística. Asimismo, identifica los puntos críticos del ámbito de estudio para ofrecer una explicación unificada y exhaustiva que se ajuste a los resultados de la investigación actual.

Esta investigación revela la continua evolución cronológica del desarrollo del turismo y la tecnología de la información. Analiza los orígenes, el progreso y las interacciones del turismo y la tecnología de la información, revelando los motores estructurales políticos, económicos, sociales, tecnológicos, medioambientales y jurídicos de la tecnología de la información turística. También presenta sugerencias para agendas de investigación a partir de un compendio y una perspectiva de las influencias e implicaciones en este ámbito.

Originalidad/valor

Las conclusiones de este estudio sientan las bases para un análisis exhaustivo de la influencia transformadora de la tecnología de la información en el turismo y proporcionan un marco contextual y una esclarecedora guía de agenda de investigación para la posterior exploración y análisis académico e industrial de la tecnología de la información en el turismo.

• Information technology
• Tourism and hospitality
• Progression and development
• Future agenda
• Tecnología de la información
• Turismo y hostelería
• Progreso y desarrollo
• Agenda de investigación

Acknowledgements

This project was partly supported by a research grant funded by the University of Macau.

Law, R. and Chen, S. (2024), "Developments and implications of tourism information technology: a horizon 2050 paper", Tourism Review , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-12-2023-0846

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Cultural Relativity and Acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

There is a debate about the ethical implications of using human embryos in stem cell research, which can be influenced by cultural, moral, and social values. This paper argues for an adaptable framework to accommodate diverse cultural and religious perspectives. By using an adaptive ethics model, research protections can reflect various populations and foster growth in stem cell research possibilities.

INTRODUCTION

Stem cell research combines biology, medicine, and technology, promising to alter health care and the understanding of human development. Yet, ethical contention exists because of individuals’ perceptions of using human embryos based on their various cultural, moral, and social values. While these disagreements concerning policy, use, and general acceptance have prompted the development of an international ethics policy, such a uniform approach can overlook the nuanced ethical landscapes between cultures. With diverse viewpoints in public health, a single global policy, especially one reflecting Western ethics or the ethics prevalent in high-income countries, is impractical. This paper argues for a culturally sensitive, adaptable framework for the use of embryonic stem cells. Stem cell policy should accommodate varying ethical viewpoints and promote an effective global dialogue. With an extension of an ethics model that can adapt to various cultures, we recommend localized guidelines that reflect the moral views of the people those guidelines serve.

Stem cells, characterized by their unique ability to differentiate into various cell types, enable the repair or replacement of damaged tissues. Two primary types of stem cells are somatic stem cells (adult stem cells) and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells exist in developed tissues and maintain the body’s repair processes. [1] Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are remarkably pluripotent or versatile, making them valuable in research. [2] However, the use of ESCs has sparked ethics debates. Considering the potential of embryonic stem cells, research guidelines are essential. The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) provides international stem cell research guidelines. They call for “public conversations touching on the scientific significance as well as the societal and ethical issues raised by ESC research.” [3] The ISSCR also publishes updates about culturing human embryos 14 days post fertilization, suggesting local policies and regulations should continue to evolve as ESC research develops. [4]  Like the ISSCR, which calls for local law and policy to adapt to developing stem cell research given cultural acceptance, this paper highlights the importance of local social factors such as religion and culture.

I.     Global Cultural Perspective of Embryonic Stem Cells

Views on ESCs vary throughout the world. Some countries readily embrace stem cell research and therapies, while others have stricter regulations due to ethical concerns surrounding embryonic stem cells and when an embryo becomes entitled to moral consideration. The philosophical issue of when the “someone” begins to be a human after fertilization, in the morally relevant sense, [5] impacts when an embryo becomes not just worthy of protection but morally entitled to it. The process of creating embryonic stem cell lines involves the destruction of the embryos for research. [6] Consequently, global engagement in ESC research depends on social-cultural acceptability.

a.     US and Rights-Based Cultures

In the United States, attitudes toward stem cell therapies are diverse. The ethics and social approaches, which value individualism, [7] trigger debates regarding the destruction of human embryos, creating a complex regulatory environment. For example, the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibited federal funding for the creation of embryos for research and the destruction of embryos for “more than allowed for research on fetuses in utero.” [8] Following suit, in 2001, the Bush Administration heavily restricted stem cell lines for research. However, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 was proposed to help develop ESC research but was ultimately vetoed. [9] Under the Obama administration, in 2009, an executive order lifted restrictions allowing for more development in this field. [10] The flux of research capacity and funding parallels the different cultural perceptions of human dignity of the embryo and how it is socially presented within the country’s research culture. [11]

b.     Ubuntu and Collective Cultures

African bioethics differs from Western individualism because of the different traditions and values. African traditions, as described by individuals from South Africa and supported by some studies in other African countries, including Ghana and Kenya, follow the African moral philosophies of Ubuntu or Botho and Ukama , which “advocates for a form of wholeness that comes through one’s relationship and connectedness with other people in the society,” [12] making autonomy a socially collective concept. In this context, for the community to act autonomously, individuals would come together to decide what is best for the collective. Thus, stem cell research would require examining the value of the research to society as a whole and the use of the embryos as a collective societal resource. If society views the source as part of the collective whole, and opposes using stem cells, compromising the cultural values to pursue research may cause social detachment and stunt research growth. [13] Based on local culture and moral philosophy, the permissibility of stem cell research depends on how embryo, stem cell, and cell line therapies relate to the community as a whole. Ubuntu is the expression of humanness, with the person’s identity drawn from the “’I am because we are’” value. [14] The decision in a collectivistic culture becomes one born of cultural context, and individual decisions give deference to others in the society.

Consent differs in cultures where thought and moral philosophy are based on a collective paradigm. So, applying Western bioethical concepts is unrealistic. For one, Africa is a diverse continent with many countries with different belief systems, access to health care, and reliance on traditional or Western medicines. Where traditional medicine is the primary treatment, the “’restrictive focus on biomedically-related bioethics’” [is] problematic in African contexts because it neglects bioethical issues raised by traditional systems.” [15] No single approach applies in all areas or contexts. Rather than evaluating the permissibility of ESC research according to Western concepts such as the four principles approach, different ethics approaches should prevail.

Another consideration is the socio-economic standing of countries. In parts of South Africa, researchers have not focused heavily on contributing to the stem cell discourse, either because it is not considered health care or a health science priority or because resources are unavailable. [16] Each country’s priorities differ given different social, political, and economic factors. In South Africa, for instance, areas such as maternal mortality, non-communicable diseases, telemedicine, and the strength of health systems need improvement and require more focus. [17] Stem cell research could benefit the population, but it also could divert resources from basic medical care. Researchers in South Africa adhere to the National Health Act and Medicines Control Act in South Africa and international guidelines; however, the Act is not strictly enforced, and there is no clear legislation for research conduct or ethical guidelines. [18]

Some parts of Africa condemn stem cell research. For example, 98.2 percent of the Tunisian population is Muslim. [19] Tunisia does not permit stem cell research because of moral conflict with a Fatwa. Religion heavily saturates the regulation and direction of research. [20] Stem cell use became permissible for reproductive purposes only recently, with tight restrictions preventing cells from being used in any research other than procedures concerning ART/IVF.  Their use is conditioned on consent, and available only to married couples. [21] The community's receptiveness to stem cell research depends on including communitarian African ethics.

c.     Asia

Some Asian countries also have a collective model of ethics and decision making. [22] In China, the ethics model promotes a sincere respect for life or human dignity, [23] based on protective medicine. This model, influenced by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), [24] recognizes Qi as the vital energy delivered via the meridians of the body; it connects illness to body systems, the body’s entire constitution, and the universe for a holistic bond of nature, health, and quality of life. [25] Following a protective ethics model, and traditional customs of wholeness, investment in stem cell research is heavily desired for its applications in regenerative therapies, disease modeling, and protective medicines. In a survey of medical students and healthcare practitioners, 30.8 percent considered stem cell research morally unacceptable while 63.5 percent accepted medical research using human embryonic stem cells. Of these individuals, 89.9 percent supported increased funding for stem cell research. [26] The scientific community might not reflect the overall population. From 1997 to 2019, China spent a total of $576 million (USD) on stem cell research at 8,050 stem cell programs, increased published presence from 0.6 percent to 14.01 percent of total global stem cell publications as of 2014, and made significant strides in cell-based therapies for various medical conditions. [27] However, while China has made substantial investments in stem cell research and achieved notable progress in clinical applications, concerns linger regarding ethical oversight and transparency. [28] For example, the China Biosecurity Law, promoted by the National Health Commission and China Hospital Association, attempted to mitigate risks by introducing an institutional review board (IRB) in the regulatory bodies. 5800 IRBs registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry since 2021. [29] However, issues still need to be addressed in implementing effective IRB review and approval procedures.

The substantial government funding and focus on scientific advancement have sometimes overshadowed considerations of regional cultures, ethnic minorities, and individual perspectives, particularly evident during the one-child policy era. As government policy adapts to promote public stability, such as the change from the one-child to the two-child policy, [30] research ethics should also adapt to ensure respect for the values of its represented peoples.

Japan is also relatively supportive of stem cell research and therapies. Japan has a more transparent regulatory framework, allowing for faster approval of regenerative medicine products, which has led to several advanced clinical trials and therapies. [31] South Korea is also actively engaged in stem cell research and has a history of breakthroughs in cloning and embryonic stem cells. [32] However, the field is controversial, and there are issues of scientific integrity. For example, the Korean FDA fast-tracked products for approval, [33] and in another instance, the oocyte source was unclear and possibly violated ethical standards. [34] Trust is important in research, as it builds collaborative foundations between colleagues, trial participant comfort, open-mindedness for complicated and sensitive discussions, and supports regulatory procedures for stakeholders. There is a need to respect the culture’s interest, engagement, and for research and clinical trials to be transparent and have ethical oversight to promote global research discourse and trust.

d.     Middle East

Countries in the Middle East have varying degrees of acceptance of or restrictions to policies related to using embryonic stem cells due to cultural and religious influences. Saudi Arabia has made significant contributions to stem cell research, and conducts research based on international guidelines for ethical conduct and under strict adherence to guidelines in accordance with Islamic principles. Specifically, the Saudi government and people require ESC research to adhere to Sharia law. In addition to umbilical and placental stem cells, [35] Saudi Arabia permits the use of embryonic stem cells as long as they come from miscarriages, therapeutic abortions permissible by Sharia law, or are left over from in vitro fertilization and donated to research. [36] Laws and ethical guidelines for stem cell research allow the development of research institutions such as the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, which has a cord blood bank and a stem cell registry with nearly 10,000 donors. [37] Such volume and acceptance are due to the ethical ‘permissibility’ of the donor sources, which do not conflict with religious pillars. However, some researchers err on the side of caution, choosing not to use embryos or fetal tissue as they feel it is unethical to do so. [38]

Jordan has a positive research ethics culture. [39] However, there is a significant issue of lack of trust in researchers, with 45.23 percent (38.66 percent agreeing and 6.57 percent strongly agreeing) of Jordanians holding a low level of trust in researchers, compared to 81.34 percent of Jordanians agreeing that they feel safe to participate in a research trial. [40] Safety testifies to the feeling of confidence that adequate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, whereas trust in researchers could represent the confidence in researchers to act in the participants’ best interests, adhere to ethical guidelines, provide accurate information, and respect participants’ rights and dignity. One method to improve trust would be to address communication issues relevant to ESC. Legislation surrounding stem cell research has adopted specific language, especially concerning clarification “between ‘stem cells’ and ‘embryonic stem cells’” in translation. [41] Furthermore, legislation “mandates the creation of a national committee… laying out specific regulations for stem-cell banking in accordance with international standards.” [42] This broad regulation opens the door for future global engagement and maintains transparency. However, these regulations may also constrain the influence of research direction, pace, and accessibility of research outcomes.

e.     Europe

In the European Union (EU), ethics is also principle-based, but the principles of autonomy, dignity, integrity, and vulnerability are interconnected. [43] As such, the opportunity for cohesion and concessions between individuals’ thoughts and ideals allows for a more adaptable ethics model due to the flexible principles that relate to the human experience The EU has put forth a framework in its Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being allowing member states to take different approaches. Each European state applies these principles to its specific conventions, leading to or reflecting different acceptance levels of stem cell research. [44]

For example, in Germany, Lebenzusammenhang , or the coherence of life, references integrity in the unity of human culture. Namely, the personal sphere “should not be subject to external intervention.” [45]  Stem cell interventions could affect this concept of bodily completeness, leading to heavy restrictions. Under the Grundgesetz, human dignity and the right to life with physical integrity are paramount. [46] The Embryo Protection Act of 1991 made producing cell lines illegal. Cell lines can be imported if approved by the Central Ethics Commission for Stem Cell Research only if they were derived before May 2007. [47] Stem cell research respects the integrity of life for the embryo with heavy specifications and intense oversight. This is vastly different in Finland, where the regulatory bodies find research more permissible in IVF excess, but only up to 14 days after fertilization. [48] Spain’s approach differs still, with a comprehensive regulatory framework. [49] Thus, research regulation can be culture-specific due to variations in applied principles. Diverse cultures call for various approaches to ethical permissibility. [50] Only an adaptive-deliberative model can address the cultural constructions of self and achieve positive, culturally sensitive stem cell research practices. [51]

II.     Religious Perspectives on ESC

Embryonic stem cell sources are the main consideration within religious contexts. While individuals may not regard their own religious texts as authoritative or factual, religion can shape their foundations or perspectives.

The Qur'an states:

“And indeed We created man from a quintessence of clay. Then We placed within him a small quantity of nutfa (sperm to fertilize) in a safe place. Then We have fashioned the nutfa into an ‘alaqa (clinging clot or cell cluster), then We developed the ‘alaqa into mudgha (a lump of flesh), and We made mudgha into bones, and clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation. So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators.” [52]

Many scholars of Islam estimate the time of soul installment, marked by the angel breathing in the soul to bring the individual into creation, as 120 days from conception. [53] Personhood begins at this point, and the value of life would prohibit research or experimentation that could harm the individual. If the fetus is more than 120 days old, the time ensoulment is interpreted to occur according to Islamic law, abortion is no longer permissible. [54] There are a few opposing opinions about early embryos in Islamic traditions. According to some Islamic theologians, there is no ensoulment of the early embryo, which is the source of stem cells for ESC research. [55]

In Buddhism, the stance on stem cell research is not settled. The main tenets, the prohibition against harming or destroying others (ahimsa) and the pursuit of knowledge (prajña) and compassion (karuna), leave Buddhist scholars and communities divided. [56] Some scholars argue stem cell research is in accordance with the Buddhist tenet of seeking knowledge and ending human suffering. Others feel it violates the principle of not harming others. Finding the balance between these two points relies on the karmic burden of Buddhist morality. In trying to prevent ahimsa towards the embryo, Buddhist scholars suggest that to comply with Buddhist tenets, research cannot be done as the embryo has personhood at the moment of conception and would reincarnate immediately, harming the individual's ability to build their karmic burden. [57] On the other hand, the Bodhisattvas, those considered to be on the path to enlightenment or Nirvana, have given organs and flesh to others to help alleviate grieving and to benefit all. [58] Acceptance varies on applied beliefs and interpretations.

Catholicism does not support embryonic stem cell research, as it entails creation or destruction of human embryos. This destruction conflicts with the belief in the sanctity of life. For example, in the Old Testament, Genesis describes humanity as being created in God’s image and multiplying on the Earth, referencing the sacred rights to human conception and the purpose of development and life. In the Ten Commandments, the tenet that one should not kill has numerous interpretations where killing could mean murder or shedding of the sanctity of life, demonstrating the high value of human personhood. In other books, the theological conception of when life begins is interpreted as in utero, [59] highlighting the inviolability of life and its formation in vivo to make a religious point for accepting such research as relatively limited, if at all. [60] The Vatican has released ethical directives to help apply a theological basis to modern-day conflicts. The Magisterium of the Church states that “unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm,” experimentation on fetuses, fertilized cells, stem cells, or embryos constitutes a crime. [61] Such procedures would not respect the human person who exists at these stages, according to Catholicism. Damages to the embryo are considered gravely immoral and illicit. [62] Although the Catholic Church officially opposes abortion, surveys demonstrate that many Catholic people hold pro-choice views, whether due to the context of conception, stage of pregnancy, threat to the mother’s life, or for other reasons, demonstrating that practicing members can also accept some but not all tenets. [63]

Some major Jewish denominations, such as the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements, are open to supporting ESC use or research as long as it is for saving a life. [64] Within Judaism, the Talmud, or study, gives personhood to the child at birth and emphasizes that life does not begin at conception: [65]

“If she is found pregnant, until the fortieth day it is mere fluid,” [66]

Whereas most religions prioritize the status of human embryos, the Halakah (Jewish religious law) states that to save one life, most other religious laws can be ignored because it is in pursuit of preservation. [67] Stem cell research is accepted due to application of these religious laws.

We recognize that all religions contain subsets and sects. The variety of environmental and cultural differences within religious groups requires further analysis to respect the flexibility of religious thoughts and practices. We make no presumptions that all cultures require notions of autonomy or morality as under the common morality theory , which asserts a set of universal moral norms that all individuals share provides moral reasoning and guides ethical decisions. [68] We only wish to show that the interaction with morality varies between cultures and countries.

III.     A Flexible Ethical Approach

The plurality of different moral approaches described above demonstrates that there can be no universally acceptable uniform law for ESC on a global scale. Instead of developing one standard, flexible ethical applications must be continued. We recommend local guidelines that incorporate important cultural and ethical priorities.

While the Declaration of Helsinki is more relevant to people in clinical trials receiving ESC products, in keeping with the tradition of protections for research subjects, consent of the donor is an ethical requirement for ESC donation in many jurisdictions including the US, Canada, and Europe. [69] The Declaration of Helsinki provides a reference point for regulatory standards and could potentially be used as a universal baseline for obtaining consent prior to gamete or embryo donation.

For instance, in Columbia University’s egg donor program for stem cell research, donors followed standard screening protocols and “underwent counseling sessions that included information as to the purpose of oocyte donation for research, what the oocytes would be used for, the risks and benefits of donation, and process of oocyte stimulation” to ensure transparency for consent. [70] The program helped advance stem cell research and provided clear and safe research methods with paid participants. Though paid participation or covering costs of incidental expenses may not be socially acceptable in every culture or context, [71] and creating embryos for ESC research is illegal in many jurisdictions, Columbia’s program was effective because of the clear and honest communications with donors, IRBs, and related stakeholders.  This example demonstrates that cultural acceptance of scientific research and of the idea that an egg or embryo does not have personhood is likely behind societal acceptance of donating eggs for ESC research. As noted, many countries do not permit the creation of embryos for research.

Proper communication and education regarding the process and purpose of stem cell research may bolster comprehension and garner more acceptance. “Given the sensitive subject material, a complete consent process can support voluntary participation through trust, understanding, and ethical norms from the cultures and morals participants value. This can be hard for researchers entering countries of different socioeconomic stability, with different languages and different societal values. [72]

An adequate moral foundation in medical ethics is derived from the cultural and religious basis that informs knowledge and actions. [73] Understanding local cultural and religious values and their impact on research could help researchers develop humility and promote inclusion.

IV.     Concerns

Some may argue that if researchers all adhere to one ethics standard, protection will be satisfied across all borders, and the global public will trust researchers. However, defining what needs to be protected and how to define such research standards is very specific to the people to which standards are applied. We suggest that applying one uniform guide cannot accurately protect each individual because we all possess our own perceptions and interpretations of social values. [74] Therefore, the issue of not adjusting to the moral pluralism between peoples in applying one standard of ethics can be resolved by building out ethics models that can be adapted to different cultures and religions.

Other concerns include medical tourism, which may promote health inequities. [75] Some countries may develop and approve products derived from ESC research before others, compromising research ethics or drug approval processes. There are also concerns about the sale of unauthorized stem cell treatments, for example, those without FDA approval in the United States. Countries with robust research infrastructures may be tempted to attract medical tourists, and some customers will have false hopes based on aggressive publicity of unproven treatments. [76]

For example, in China, stem cell clinics can market to foreign clients who are not protected under the regulatory regimes. Companies employ a marketing strategy of “ethically friendly” therapies. Specifically, in the case of Beike, China’s leading stem cell tourism company and sprouting network, ethical oversight of administrators or health bureaus at one site has “the unintended consequence of shifting questionable activities to another node in Beike's diffuse network.” [77] In contrast, Jordan is aware of stem cell research’s potential abuse and its own status as a “health-care hub.” Jordan’s expanded regulations include preserving the interests of individuals in clinical trials and banning private companies from ESC research to preserve transparency and the integrity of research practices. [78]

The social priorities of the community are also a concern. The ISSCR explicitly states that guidelines “should be periodically revised to accommodate scientific advances, new challenges, and evolving social priorities.” [79] The adaptable ethics model extends this consideration further by addressing whether research is warranted given the varying degrees of socioeconomic conditions, political stability, and healthcare accessibilities and limitations. An ethical approach would require discussion about resource allocation and appropriate distribution of funds. [80]

While some religions emphasize the sanctity of life from conception, which may lead to public opposition to ESC research, others encourage ESC research due to its potential for healing and alleviating human pain. Many countries have special regulations that balance local views on embryonic personhood, the benefits of research as individual or societal goods, and the protection of human research subjects. To foster understanding and constructive dialogue, global policy frameworks should prioritize the protection of universal human rights, transparency, and informed consent. In addition to these foundational global policies, we recommend tailoring local guidelines to reflect the diverse cultural and religious perspectives of the populations they govern. Ethics models should be adapted to local populations to effectively establish research protections, growth, and possibilities of stem cell research.

For example, in countries with strong beliefs in the moral sanctity of embryos or heavy religious restrictions, an adaptive model can allow for discussion instead of immediate rejection. In countries with limited individual rights and voice in science policy, an adaptive model ensures cultural, moral, and religious views are taken into consideration, thereby building social inclusion. While this ethical consideration by the government may not give a complete voice to every individual, it will help balance policies and maintain the diverse perspectives of those it affects. Embracing an adaptive ethics model of ESC research promotes open-minded dialogue and respect for the importance of human belief and tradition. By actively engaging with cultural and religious values, researchers can better handle disagreements and promote ethical research practices that benefit each society.

This brief exploration of the religious and cultural differences that impact ESC research reveals the nuances of relative ethics and highlights a need for local policymakers to apply a more intense adaptive model.

[1] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice.  Orthopedic reviews ,  14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[2] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice.  Orthopedic reviews ,  14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[3] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk ; Kimmelman, J., Hyun, I., Benvenisty, N.  et al.  Policy: Global standards for stem-cell research.  Nature   533 , 311–313 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/533311a

[4] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk

[5] Concerning the moral philosophies of stem cell research, our paper does not posit a personal moral stance nor delve into the “when” of human life begins. To read further about the philosophical debate, consider the following sources:

Sandel M. J. (2004). Embryo ethics--the moral logic of stem-cell research.  The New England journal of medicine ,  351 (3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048145 ; George, R. P., & Lee, P. (2020, September 26). Acorns and Embryos . The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/acorns-and-embryos ; Sagan, A., & Singer, P. (2007). The moral status of stem cells. Metaphilosophy , 38 (2/3), 264–284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439776 ; McHugh P. R. (2004). Zygote and "clonote"--the ethical use of embryonic stem cells.  The New England journal of medicine ,  351 (3), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048147 ; Kurjak, A., & Tripalo, A. (2004). The facts and doubts about beginning of the human life and personality.  Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences ,  4 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2004.3453

[6] Vazin, T., & Freed, W. J. (2010). Human embryonic stem cells: derivation, culture, and differentiation: a review.  Restorative neurology and neuroscience ,  28 (4), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-2010-0543

[7] Socially, at its core, the Western approach to ethics is widely principle-based, autonomy being one of the key factors to ensure a fundamental respect for persons within research. For information regarding autonomy in research, see: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, & National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.; For a more in-depth review of autonomy within the US, see: Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics . Oxford University Press.

[8] Sherley v. Sebelius , 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011), citing 45 C.F.R. 46.204(b) and [42 U.S.C. § 289g(b)]. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6c690438a9b43dd685257a64004ebf99/$file/11-5241-1391178.pdf

[9] Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H. R. 810, 109 th Cong. (2001). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr810/text ; Bush, G. W. (2006, July 19). Message to the House of Representatives . National Archives and Records Administration. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-5.html

[10] National Archives and Records Administration. (2009, March 9). Executive order 13505 -- removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells . National Archives and Records Administration. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/removing-barriers-responsible-scientific-research-involving-human-stem-cells

[11] Hurlbut, W. B. (2006). Science, Religion, and the Politics of Stem Cells.  Social Research ,  73 (3), 819–834. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971854

[12] Akpa-Inyang, Francis & Chima, Sylvester. (2021). South African traditional values and beliefs regarding informed consent and limitations of the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities: a cross-cultural qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics . 22. 10.1186/s12910-021-00678-4.

[13] Source for further reading: Tangwa G. B. (2007). Moral status of embryonic stem cells: perspective of an African villager. Bioethics , 21(8), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00582.x , see also Mnisi, F. M. (2020). An African analysis based on ethics of Ubuntu - are human embryonic stem cell patents morally justifiable? African Insight , 49 (4).

[14] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics , 22 (2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[15] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics, 22(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[16] Jackson, C.S., Pepper, M.S. Opportunities and barriers to establishing a cell therapy programme in South Africa.  Stem Cell Res Ther   4 , 54 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt204 ; Pew Research Center. (2014, May 1). Public health a major priority in African nations . Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/05/01/public-health-a-major-priority-in-african-nations/

[17] Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2021). Health Research Priorities (revised) for South Africa 2021-2024 . National Health Research Strategy. https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/National-Health-Research-Priorities-2021-2024.pdf

[18] Oosthuizen, H. (2013). Legal and Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research in South Africa. In: Beran, R. (eds) Legal and Forensic Medicine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32338-6_80 , see also: Gaobotse G (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[19] United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. (1998). Tunisia: Information on the status of Christian conversions in Tunisia . UNHCR Web Archive. https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230522142618/https://www.refworld.org/docid/3df0be9a2.html

[20] Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[21] Kooli, C. Review of assisted reproduction techniques, laws, and regulations in Muslim countries.  Middle East Fertil Soc J   24 , 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-019-0011-0 ; Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[22] Pang M. C. (1999). Protective truthfulness: the Chinese way of safeguarding patients in informed treatment decisions. Journal of medical ethics , 25(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.25.3.247

[23] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[24] Wang, Y., Xue, Y., & Guo, H. D. (2022). Intervention effects of traditional Chinese medicine on stem cell therapy of myocardial infarction.  Frontiers in pharmacology ,  13 , 1013740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1013740

[25] Li, X.-T., & Zhao, J. (2012). Chapter 4: An Approach to the Nature of Qi in TCM- Qi and Bioenergy. In Recent Advances in Theories and Practice of Chinese Medicine (p. 79). InTech.

[26] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students.  Stem cells international ,  2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[27] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students.  Stem cells international ,  2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[28] Zhang, J. Y. (2017). Lost in translation? accountability and governance of Clinical Stem Cell Research in China. Regenerative Medicine , 12 (6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0035

[29] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[30] Chen, H., Wei, T., Wang, H.  et al.  Association of China’s two-child policy with changes in number of births and birth defects rate, 2008–2017.  BMC Public Health   22 , 434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12839-0

[31] Azuma, K. Regulatory Landscape of Regenerative Medicine in Japan.  Curr Stem Cell Rep   1 , 118–128 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-015-0012-6

[32] Harris, R. (2005, May 19). Researchers Report Advance in Stem Cell Production . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2005/05/19/4658967/researchers-report-advance-in-stem-cell-production

[33] Park, S. (2012). South Korea steps up stem-cell work.  Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10565

[34] Resnik, D. B., Shamoo, A. E., & Krimsky, S. (2006). Fraudulent human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea: lessons learned.  Accountability in research ,  13 (1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620600634193 .

[35] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[36] Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies.  https://www.aabb.org/regulatory-and-advocacy/regulatory-affairs/regulatory-for-cellular-therapies/international-competent-authorities/saudi-arabia

[37] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia.  BMC medical ethics ,  21 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[38] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics , 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

Culturally, autonomy practices follow a relational autonomy approach based on a paternalistic deontological health care model. The adherence to strict international research policies and religious pillars within the regulatory environment is a great foundation for research ethics. However, there is a need to develop locally targeted ethics approaches for research (as called for in Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6), this decision-making approach may help advise a research decision model. For more on the clinical cultural autonomy approaches, see: Alabdullah, Y. Y., Alzaid, E., Alsaad, S., Alamri, T., Alolayan, S. W., Bah, S., & Aljoudi, A. S. (2022). Autonomy and paternalism in Shared decision‐making in a Saudi Arabian tertiary hospital: A cross‐sectional study. Developing World Bioethics , 23 (3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12355 ; Bukhari, A. A. (2017). Universal Principles of Bioethics and Patient Rights in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/124; Ladha, S., Nakshawani, S. A., Alzaidy, A., & Tarab, B. (2023, October 26). Islam and Bioethics: What We All Need to Know . Columbia University School of Professional Studies. https://sps.columbia.edu/events/islam-and-bioethics-what-we-all-need-know

[39] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics.  Research Ethics ,  17 (2), 228-241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[40] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics.  Research Ethics ,  17 (2), 228-241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[41] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[42] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[43] The EU’s definition of autonomy relates to the capacity for creating ideas, moral insight, decisions, and actions without constraint, personal responsibility, and informed consent. However, the EU views autonomy as not completely able to protect individuals and depends on other principles, such as dignity, which “expresses the intrinsic worth and fundamental equality of all human beings.” Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[44] Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164) https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=164 (forbidding the creation of embryos for research purposes only, and suggests embryos in vitro have protections.); Also see Drabiak-Syed B. K. (2013). New President, New Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy: Comparative International Perspectives and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Laws in France.  Biotechnology Law Report ,  32 (6), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2013.9865

[45] Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[46] Tomuschat, C., Currie, D. P., Kommers, D. P., & Kerr, R. (Trans.). (1949, May 23). Basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany. https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

[47] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Germany . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-germany

[48] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Finland . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-finland

[49] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Spain . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-spain

[50] Some sources to consider regarding ethics models or regulatory oversights of other cultures not covered:

Kara MA. Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: the perspective of Turkey. J Med Ethics. 2007 Nov;33(11):627-30. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017400. PMID: 17971462; PMCID: PMC2598110.

Ugarte, O. N., & Acioly, M. A. (2014). The principle of autonomy in Brazil: one needs to discuss it ...  Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes ,  41 (5), 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912014005013

Bharadwaj, A., & Glasner, P. E. (2012). Local cells, global science: The rise of embryonic stem cell research in India . Routledge.

For further research on specific European countries regarding ethical and regulatory framework, we recommend this database: Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Europe . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-europe   

[51] Klitzman, R. (2006). Complications of culture in obtaining informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(1), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160500394671 see also: Ekmekci, P. E., & Arda, B. (2017). Interculturalism and Informed Consent: Respecting Cultural Differences without Breaching Human Rights.  Cultura (Iasi, Romania) ,  14 (2), 159–172.; For why trust is important in research, see also: Gray, B., Hilder, J., Macdonald, L., Tester, R., Dowell, A., & Stubbe, M. (2017). Are research ethics guidelines culturally competent?  Research Ethics ,  13 (1), 23-41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650235

[52] The Qur'an  (M. Khattab, Trans.). (1965). Al-Mu’minun, 23: 12-14. https://quran.com/23

[53] Lenfest, Y. (2017, December 8). Islam and the beginning of human life . Bill of Health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2017/12/08/islam-and-the-beginning-of-human-life/

[54] Aksoy, S. (2005). Making regulations and drawing up legislation in Islamic countries under conditions of uncertainty, with special reference to embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Medical Ethics , 31: 399-403.; see also: Mahmoud, Azza. "Islamic Bioethics: National Regulations and Guidelines of Human Stem Cell Research in the Muslim World." Master's thesis, Chapman University, 2022. https://doi.org/10.36837/ chapman.000386

[55] Rashid, R. (2022). When does Ensoulment occur in the Human Foetus. Journal of the British Islamic Medical Association , 12 (4). ISSN 2634 8071. https://www.jbima.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2-Ethics-3_-Ensoulment_Rafaqat.pdf.

[56] Sivaraman, M. & Noor, S. (2017). Ethics of embryonic stem cell research according to Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, and Islamic religions: perspective from Malaysia. Asian Biomedicine,8(1) 43-52.  https://doi.org/10.5372/1905-7415.0801.260

[57] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[58] Lecso, P. A. (1991). The Bodhisattva Ideal and Organ Transplantation.  Journal of Religion and Health ,  30 (1), 35–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27510629 ; Bodhisattva, S. (n.d.). The Key of Becoming a Bodhisattva . A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life. http://www.buddhism.org/Sutras/2/BodhisattvaWay.htm

[59] There is no explicit religious reference to when life begins or how to conduct research that interacts with the concept of life. However, these are relevant verses pertaining to how the fetus is viewed. (( King James Bible . (1999). Oxford University Press. (original work published 1769))

Jerimiah 1: 5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…”

In prophet Jerimiah’s insight, God set him apart as a person known before childbirth, a theme carried within the Psalm of David.

Psalm 139: 13-14 “…Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”

These verses demonstrate David’s respect for God as an entity that would know of all man’s thoughts and doings even before birth.

[60] It should be noted that abortion is not supported as well.

[61] The Vatican. (1987, February 22). Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day . Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

[62] The Vatican. (2000, August 25). Declaration On the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells . Pontifical Academy for Life. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html ; Ohara, N. (2003). Ethical Consideration of Experimentation Using Living Human Embryos: The Catholic Church’s Position on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology . Retrieved from https://article.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/30/2-3/pii/2003018/77-81.pdf.

[63] Smith, G. A. (2022, May 23). Like Americans overall, Catholics vary in their abortion views, with regular mass attenders most opposed . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/

[64] Rosner, F., & Reichman, E. (2002). Embryonic stem cell research in Jewish law. Journal of halacha and contemporary society , (43), 49–68.; Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[65] Schenker J. G. (2008). The beginning of human life: status of embryo. Perspectives in Halakha (Jewish Religious Law).  Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics ,  25 (6), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9221-6

[66] Ruttenberg, D. (2020, May 5). The Torah of Abortion Justice (annotated source sheet) . Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/234926.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

[67] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[68] Gert, B. (2007). Common morality: Deciding what to do . Oxford Univ. Press.

[69] World Medical Association (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA , 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Declaration of Helsinki – WMA – The World Medical Association .; see also: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979).  The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

[70] Zakarin Safier, L., Gumer, A., Kline, M., Egli, D., & Sauer, M. V. (2018). Compensating human subjects providing oocytes for stem cell research: 9-year experience and outcomes.  Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics ,  35 (7), 1219–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1171-z https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063839/ see also: Riordan, N. H., & Paz Rodríguez, J. (2021). Addressing concerns regarding associated costs, transparency, and integrity of research in recent stem cell trial. Stem Cells Translational Medicine , 10 (12), 1715–1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.21-0234

[71] Klitzman, R., & Sauer, M. V. (2009). Payment of egg donors in stem cell research in the USA.  Reproductive biomedicine online ,  18 (5), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60002-8

[72] Krosin, M. T., Klitzman, R., Levin, B., Cheng, J., & Ranney, M. L. (2006). Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa.  Clinical trials (London, England) ,  3 (3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn150oa

[73] Veatch, Robert M.  Hippocratic, Religious, and Secular Medical Ethics: The Points of Conflict . Georgetown University Press, 2012.

[74] Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D. (2018). One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity.  Research Ethics ,  14 (3), 1-17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739939

[75] Pirzada, N. (2022). The Expansion of Turkey’s Medical Tourism Industry.  Voices in Bioethics ,  8 . https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v8i.9894

[76] Stem Cell Tourism: False Hope for Real Money . Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI). (2023). https://hsci.harvard.edu/stem-cell-tourism , See also: Bissassar, M. (2017). Transnational Stem Cell Tourism: An ethical analysis.  Voices in Bioethics ,  3 . https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v3i.6027

[77] Song, P. (2011) The proliferation of stem cell therapies in post-Mao China: problematizing ethical regulation,  New Genetics and Society , 30:2, 141-153, DOI:  10.1080/14636778.2011.574375

[78] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[79] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2024). Standards in stem cell research . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/5-standards-in-stem-cell-research

[80] Benjamin, R. (2013). People’s science bodies and rights on the Stem Cell Frontier . Stanford University Press.

Mifrah Hayath

SM Candidate Harvard Medical School, MS Biotechnology Johns Hopkins University

Olivia Bowers

MS Bioethics Columbia University (Disclosure: affiliated with Voices in Bioethics)

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .