elements of a good research work

Elements of Research: Important, Elements, Conducting & More

Want to know everything about elements of research, then you are at the right place. Research is an essential part of any academic or scientific endeavor. Whether you are a student writing a thesis, a researcher conducting a study, or a scientist working on a new discovery, research is the foundation of your work. However, conducting research can be a daunting task, especially if you are new to the field. 

In this blog, we will explore the key elements of research and provide a guide to help you understand the building blocks of a successful study.

What is Research?

Table of Contents

Research involves a systematic process of proving a relationship between variables. This can be done through statistical methods, qualitative methods or a combination of both.

A good research design must contain a clear statement, techniques for data collection, processing and analysis.

Elements of Research: Important, Elements, Conducting & More

Here in this section you get to know about elements of research: Important, Elements, Conducting & More:

Why is Research Important?

If you want to know the Elements of Research then you must first know why Research is important. Then here are some reasons why research is important which are as follows:

1. Advancing Knowledge

Research helps to advance knowledge by generating new ideas, theories, and concepts. It helps to build on existing knowledge and expand our understanding of the world.

2. Solving Problems

Research is used to solve problems and to find solutions to complex issues. It helps to identify the root causes of problems and to develop effective strategies for addressing them.

3. Informing Decision-Making

Research provides valuable information that can be used to inform decision-making. It helps to identify the potential risks and benefits of different courses of action, and to determine the most effective approach to solving problems.

4. Improving Quality Of Life

Research has the potential to improve the quality of life for individuals and communities. It can lead to the development of new technologies, medicines, and treatments, and can help to address social and environmental issues.

5. Economic Development

Research can contribute to economic development by driving innovation, creating new jobs, and generating new industries. It can help to create a more competitive and dynamic economy.

6. Personal Growth

Conducting research can also contribute to personal growth by providing opportunities for learning, developing new skills, and gaining a deeper understanding of a particular subject.

The Elements of Research – Things You Need To Know

Here in this section we will tell you some of the elements of research that you must know:

Research is a systematic process of finding evidence to support a knowledge claim. It involves a variety of methods, including observation, experimentation and logical reasoning, which are used to gather data.

Researchers work to develop new concepts and ideas that are relevant, useful and practical. They also explore gaps in current knowledge to identify needs for more research and improve how people think about a problem.

There are a few different types of research, which can be classified into basic and applied research. Fundamental research aims to understand the reasons behind something, whereas applied research seeks to find solutions to problems and create commercially viable applications.

Both methods are based on a systematic approach to capture accurate data. Researchers must practice a code of conduct and follow ethical guidelines to ensure that their research is valid and reliable. This is why it is so important to make sure that all of the data collected has been accurately analyzed and there are no anomalies in the results. This is the first elements of research.

2. Variable

A variable is an element of research that can be measured, manipulated or controlled. It can be any property or characteristic that changes over time, can be a number or can take on different values (such as height, age, temperature or test scores).

In experiments, independent and dependent variables are manipulated to test causal relationships between them. In an experiment where you give one group of people an active drug and another group a placebo, the dependent variable is the response of each person to the drug.

The independent variable is the one you manipulate in the experiment to test its effect on the dependent variable. It’s called an independent variable because it’s not affected by other factors that are being measured in your experiment.

In a study where you want to see how the amount of fertilizers affects plant growth, the independent variable is the amount of fertilizers. The dependent variable is the plant’s growth.

3. Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a statement that explains the predictions and reasoning of your research–an “educated guess” about how your scientific experiments will end. It is the foundation of your research, which should be as clear, specific and testable as possible.

A research hypothesis can be either simple or complex. A simple hypothesis looks at a relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable, while a complex hypothesis explores the effects of multiple variables on each other.

In science, researchers often use a null hypothesis to confirm if the results of an experiment are due to chance or if they support a theory. A null hypothesis states that no relationship exists between two variables, and any changes that occur when the independent variable is manipulated are not due to chance.

A researcher can also choose an alternative hypothesis to narrow down the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. This is called deductive research.

4. Operational Definition

The operational definition of research is a detailed specification of how you will go about measuring a variable. It includes what instrument you will use, how you plan to interpret the data and how you will make comparisons.

A good operational definition will eliminate ambiguity, ensure consistency and reduce measurement errors. It will also be consistent with the theoretical constructs being studied and the methodology used in the study.

For example, if a researcher wants to measure the relationship between age and substance abuse they would define their variable as age measured in years.

Similarly, if they want to measure the relationship between hot weather and violent crime they would define their variable as temperature.

It’s important to have an operational definition of a concept because it helps other researchers to understand the method you used in your study and makes it more replicable. It also helps to avoid misinterpreting your findings, which can lead to erroneous conclusions and poor outcomes. This is the last elements of research.

• Accounting Research Topics
• How To Write a Statistical Research Paper

Ways of Conducting Research?

After knowing the elements of research now you have to know the ways to conduct research. On the other hand, there is a systematic approach to be adopted while conducting research. It involves the following:

1. Defining the Research Problem

The first step in conducting research is to identify the research problem. The research problem is the question or issue that you want to investigate. It should be clearly defined and focused, so that you can design a study that will provide meaningful results. To identify the research problem, you need to start by asking questions about the topic you want to investigate. These questions should be open-ended and designed to help you explore the issue in depth.

Once you have identified the research problem, you can start to develop a research question. The research question should be specific and focused, and should outline the main objective of your study. It should also be clear and concise, so that it can be easily communicated to others.

2. Reviewing the Literature

Before you start to design your study, you need to conduct a literature review. A literature review is a comprehensive analysis of the existing research on your topic. It involves identifying and analyzing relevant literature, including books, articles, and other sources of information.

The purpose of a literature review is to identify the gaps in the existing research and to determine the most effective research methods to use in your study. It also helps you to refine your research question and to develop hypotheses that can be tested in your study.

3. Designing the Study

Once you have identified the research problem and reviewed the literature, you can start to design your study. The study design is the blueprint for your research, and it outlines the methods and procedures that you will use to collect and analyze data.

There are several different types of study designs, including experimental studies, observational studies, and surveys. The type of study design that you choose will depend on the research question, the available resources, and the nature of the data that you want to collect.

4. Collecting Data

The next step in conducting research is to collect data. There are several different methods that you can use to collect data, including surveys, interviews, observations, and experiments. The method that you choose will depend on the nature of your research question and the type of data that you want to collect.

When collecting data, it is important to ensure that the data is accurate and reliable. This involves using appropriate sampling methods, ensuring that the data is collected in a consistent manner, and taking steps to minimize bias and error.

5. Analyzing the Data

Once you have collected the data, you need to analyze it. Data analysis involves examining the data to identify patterns, trends, and relationships. There are several different methods that you can use to analyze data, including descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and qualitative analysis .

The method that you choose will depend on the nature of your research question and the type of data that you have collected. It is important to use appropriate statistical techniques and to ensure that the results are reliable and valid.

6. Reporting the Results

The final step in conducting research is to report the results. The purpose of reporting the results is to communicate the findings of your study to others. This involves writing a research report that outlines the research question, the methods that were used, the results that were obtained, and the conclusions that were drawn.

The research report should be written in a clear and concise manner, and should be organized in a logical and coherent manner. It should also be accompanied by appropriate tables, graphs, and figures to enhance the clarity and visualization of the results. Additionally, the research report should include a discussion section that interprets the results and discusses their implications.

It is important to use appropriate language and to avoid making unsupported claims. The research report should also include a reference list that provides a complete list of the sources that were used in the study.

7. Ethical Considerations in Research

When conducting research, it is important to consider ethical issues. Ethical considerations involve ensuring that the rights and welfare of research participants are protected, and that the research is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner.

Some of the key ethical considerations in research include obtaining informed consent from participants, maintaining confidentiality, minimizing risks to participants, and ensuring that the benefits of the research outweigh any potential harms.

In addition, researchers should be aware of potential conflicts of interest and should disclose any conflicts of interest to ensure that the research is conducted in an impartial and unbiased manner.

Ways How To Find And Use Research Resources

Here are some ways to find and use research resources: 

1. Start With Your Library

Your library is a great place to find research resources, including books, articles, databases, and websites. The librarians at your library can help you find the resources you need and teach you how to use them.

2. Use Online Databases

Many online databases provide access to scholarly articles, books, and other research materials. Some of these websites are free to use, but you have to pay to use the others.

3. Search The Web

You can also find research resources on the web. However, it is important to be critical of the information you find online, as not all websites are created equal.

4. Talk To Experts

If you are stuck, talk to experts in your field. They may be able to point you to helpful resources or provide you with insights that you would not have found on your own.

5. Use Social Media

Social media can be a great way to connect with experts in your field and find research resources. Many experts have their own blogs or Twitter accounts where they share their research and insights.

6. Attend Conferences

Conferences are a great way to learn about new research and meet experts in your field. You can also find research resources such as books, articles, and posters at conferences.

7. Use Government Websites

Government websites can be a great source of research resources. Many government agencies publish reports, studies, and data that can be helpful for research projects.

Tips For Writing Effective Research Paper In 2023

Here are some tips for writing effective research paper in 2023 : 

1. Choose A Topic That You Are Interested In And That You Know Something About

This will make it easier and more fun to study. When choosing a topic, it is important to consider your interests, your skills, and your knowledge. You should also consider the length and scope of the paper you must write.

2. Do Your Research Thoroughly

This means reading a variety of sources and carefully evaluating their credibility. When doing your research, it is important to use a variety of sources, including books, articles, websites, and interviews. You should also be critical of your sources and evaluate their credibility.

3. Take Notes On Your Research

This will help you to keep track of your findings and to organize your thoughts. When taking notes, it is important to be selective and only to include the most important information. You should also organize your notes in a way that makes sense to you.

4. Write An Outline For Your Paper

This will help you to structure your paper and to make sure that all of your points are covered. When writing an outline, it is important to include an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. You should also include subheadings to help organize your thoughts.

5. Write A Strong Introduction

Your introduction should grab the reader’s attention and introduce the topic of your paper. A strong introduction should include a clear thesis statement, which is a sentence that states the main point of your paper.

6. Write A Clear And Concise Body Text

Your body text should present your findings and arguments logically and easily. When writing the body of your paper, it is important to use evidence to support your claims. You should also use transition words to help guide your reader through your argument.

7. Write A Strong Conclusion

Your conclusion should clarify your thesis statement and proceed over your important points. A strong conclusion should also leave the reader with something to think about.

8. Proofread Your Paper Carefully

This will help you find any mistakes in writing, grammar, or punctuation. When proofreading your paper, it is helpful to read it aloud. This will help you find errors you might not have noticed otherwise.

Conducting research can be a challenging and complex process. However, by understanding the key elements of research, you can develop a successful study that provides meaningful results. The key elements of research include defining the research problem, reviewing the literature, designing the study, collecting data, analyzing the data, and reporting the results.

Additionally, it is important to consider ethical issues when conducting research to ensure that the rights and welfare of research participants are protected. By following these guidelines, you can conduct research that makes a valuable contribution to your field of study.

Q 1. Why is defining the research problem important?

Defining the research problem is essential because it sets the direction and focus of the study. It helps researchers stay on track and investigate a specific issue effectively.

Q 2. What is the importance of a literature study in research?

The literature review is important as it provides an overview of existing knowledge on the research topic. It helps researchers identify gaps, build on previous work, and ensure their study is relevant and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

Related Posts

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

28 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

What is Qualitative in Research

What is qualitative in qualitative research.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

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

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

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

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

Improving Quality: Strategies

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

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

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

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

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

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

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

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

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

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 11 February 2019

Essential elements for high-impact scientific writing

• Eric J. Buenz 0

Eric Buenz is a Research Professor at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, Nelson, New Zealand.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

The technicalities of good scientific writing are well established 1 , 2 and important, but for your writing to have an impact, you need to resurrect the excitement of research — something that is often lost in day-to-day work. Successfully communicating the impact of your research is crucial for making your work more accessible, and for career progression. Here are the key elements to make your data stand out.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00546-7

This is an article from the Nature Careers community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Plaxco, K. W. Protein Sci. 19 , 2261–2266 (2010).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sauaia, A. et al. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 76 , 1322–1327 (2014).

Buenz, E. J. & Parry G. J. Am. J. Med. 131 , e181–e184 (2018).

Download references

Related Articles

Writing for a Nature journal

Postdoctoral Scholar - Organic Synthesis

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Postdoctoral Scholar - Chemical Biology

Postdoctoral scholar - clinical pharmacy & translational science, postdoctoral associate- genome editing for cell therapy.

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Associate- Oncology

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The introduction leads the reader from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. It establishes the scope, context, and significance of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal, and outlining the remaining structure and organization of the paper.

Key Elements of the Research Proposal. Prepared under the direction of the Superintendent and by the 2010 Curriculum Design and Writing Team. Baltimore County Public Schools.

Importance of a Good Introduction

Think of the introduction as a mental road map that must answer for the reader these four questions:

• What was I studying?
• Why was this topic important to investigate?
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study?
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding?

According to Reyes, there are three overarching goals of a good introduction: 1) ensure that you summarize prior studies about the topic in a manner that lays a foundation for understanding the research problem; 2) explain how your study specifically addresses gaps in the literature, insufficient consideration of the topic, or other deficiency in the literature; and, 3) note the broader theoretical, empirical, and/or policy contributions and implications of your research.

A well-written introduction is important because, quite simply, you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. The opening paragraphs of your paper will provide your readers with their initial impressions about the logic of your argument, your writing style, the overall quality of your research, and, ultimately, the validity of your findings and conclusions. A vague, disorganized, or error-filled introduction will create a negative impression, whereas, a concise, engaging, and well-written introduction will lead your readers to think highly of your analytical skills, your writing style, and your research approach. All introductions should conclude with a brief paragraph that describes the organization of the rest of the paper.

Hirano, Eliana. “Research Article Introductions in English for Specific Purposes: A Comparison between Brazilian, Portuguese, and English.” English for Specific Purposes 28 (October 2009): 240-250; Samraj, B. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002): 1–17; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide. Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Structure and Approach

The introduction is the broad beginning of the paper that answers three important questions for the reader:

• What is this?
• Why should I read it?
• What do you want me to think about / consider doing / react to?

Think of the structure of the introduction as an inverted triangle of information that lays a foundation for understanding the research problem. Organize the information so as to present the more general aspects of the topic early in the introduction, then narrow your analysis to more specific topical information that provides context, finally arriving at your research problem and the rationale for studying it [often written as a series of key questions to be addressed or framed as a hypothesis or set of assumptions to be tested] and, whenever possible, a description of the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

These are general phases associated with writing an introduction: 1.  Establish an area to research by:

• Highlighting the importance of the topic, and/or
• Making general statements about the topic, and/or
• Presenting an overview on current research on the subject.

2.  Identify a research niche by:

• Opposing an existing assumption, and/or
• Revealing a gap in existing research, and/or
• Formulating a research question or problem, and/or
• Continuing a disciplinary tradition.

3.  Place your research within the research niche by:

• Stating the intent of your study,
• Outlining the key characteristics of your study,
• Describing important results, and
• Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

NOTE:   It is often useful to review the introduction late in the writing process. This is appropriate because outcomes are unknown until you've completed the study. After you complete writing the body of the paper, go back and review introductory descriptions of the structure of the paper, the method of data gathering, the reporting and analysis of results, and the conclusion. Reviewing and, if necessary, rewriting the introduction ensures that it correctly matches the overall structure of your final paper.

II.  Delimitations of the Study

Delimitations refer to those characteristics that limit the scope and define the conceptual boundaries of your research . This is determined by the conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions you make about how to investigate the research problem. In other words, not only should you tell the reader what it is you are studying and why, but you must also acknowledge why you rejected alternative approaches that could have been used to examine the topic.

Obviously, the first limiting step was the choice of research problem itself. However, implicit are other, related problems that could have been chosen but were rejected. These should be noted in the conclusion of your introduction. For example, a delimitating statement could read, "Although many factors can be understood to impact the likelihood young people will vote, this study will focus on socioeconomic factors related to the need to work full-time while in school." The point is not to document every possible delimiting factor, but to highlight why previously researched issues related to the topic were not addressed.

Examples of delimitating choices would be:

• The key aims and objectives of your study,
• The research questions that you address,
• The variables of interest [i.e., the various factors and features of the phenomenon being studied],
• The method(s) of investigation,
• The time period your study covers, and
• Any relevant alternative theoretical frameworks that could have been adopted.

Review each of these decisions. Not only do you clearly establish what you intend to accomplish in your research, but you should also include a declaration of what the study does not intend to cover. In the latter case, your exclusionary decisions should be based upon criteria understood as, "not interesting"; "not directly relevant"; “too problematic because..."; "not feasible," and the like. Make this reasoning explicit!

NOTE:   Delimitations refer to the initial choices made about the broader, overall design of your study and should not be confused with documenting the limitations of your study discovered after the research has been completed.

ANOTHER NOTE: Do not view delimitating statements as admitting to an inherent failing or shortcoming in your research. They are an accepted element of academic writing intended to keep the reader focused on the research problem by explicitly defining the conceptual boundaries and scope of your study. It addresses any critical questions in the reader's mind of, "Why the hell didn't the author examine this?"

III.  The Narrative Flow

Issues to keep in mind that will help the narrative flow in your introduction :

• Your introduction should clearly identify the subject area of interest . A simple strategy to follow is to use key words from your title in the first few sentences of the introduction. This will help focus the introduction on the topic at the appropriate level and ensures that you get to the subject matter quickly without losing focus, or discussing information that is too general.
• Establish context by providing a brief and balanced review of the pertinent published literature that is available on the subject. The key is to summarize for the reader what is known about the specific research problem before you did your analysis. This part of your introduction should not represent a comprehensive literature review--that comes next. It consists of a general review of the important, foundational research literature [with citations] that establishes a foundation for understanding key elements of the research problem. See the drop-down menu under this tab for " Background Information " regarding types of contexts.
• Clearly state the hypothesis that you investigated . When you are first learning to write in this format it is okay, and actually preferable, to use a past statement like, "The purpose of this study was to...." or "We investigated three possible mechanisms to explain the...."
• Why did you choose this kind of research study or design? Provide a clear statement of the rationale for your approach to the problem studied. This will usually follow your statement of purpose in the last paragraph of the introduction.

IV.  Engaging the Reader

A research problem in the social sciences can come across as dry and uninteresting to anyone unfamiliar with the topic . Therefore, one of the goals of your introduction is to make readers want to read your paper. Here are several strategies you can use to grab the reader's attention:

• Open with a compelling story . Almost all research problems in the social sciences, no matter how obscure or esoteric , are really about the lives of people. Telling a story that humanizes an issue can help illuminate the significance of the problem and help the reader empathize with those affected by the condition being studied.
• Include a strong quotation or a vivid, perhaps unexpected, anecdote . During your review of the literature, make note of any quotes or anecdotes that grab your attention because they can used in your introduction to highlight the research problem in a captivating way.
• Pose a provocative or thought-provoking question . Your research problem should be framed by a set of questions to be addressed or hypotheses to be tested. However, a provocative question can be presented in the beginning of your introduction that challenges an existing assumption or compels the reader to consider an alternative viewpoint that helps establish the significance of your study. 
• Describe a puzzling scenario or incongruity . This involves highlighting an interesting quandary concerning the research problem or describing contradictory findings from prior studies about a topic. Posing what is essentially an unresolved intellectual riddle about the problem can engage the reader's interest in the study.
• Cite a stirring example or case study that illustrates why the research problem is important . Draw upon the findings of others to demonstrate the significance of the problem and to describe how your study builds upon or offers alternatives ways of investigating this prior research.

NOTE:   It is important that you choose only one of the suggested strategies for engaging your readers. This avoids giving an impression that your paper is more flash than substance and does not distract from the substance of your study.

Freedman, Leora  and Jerry Plotnick. Introductions and Conclusions. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Introduction. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Introductions. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Introductions, Body Paragraphs, and Conclusions for an Argument Paper. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide . Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70; Resources for Writers: Introduction Strategies. Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Sharpling, Gerald. Writing an Introduction. Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick; Samraj, B. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002): 1–17; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004 ; Writing Your Introduction. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University.

Writing Tip

Avoid the "Dictionary" Introduction

Giving the dictionary definition of words related to the research problem may appear appropriate because it is important to define specific terminology that readers may be unfamiliar with. However, anyone can look a word up in the dictionary and a general dictionary is not a particularly authoritative source because it doesn't take into account the context of your topic and doesn't offer particularly detailed information. Also, placed in the context of a particular discipline, a term or concept may have a different meaning than what is found in a general dictionary. If you feel that you must seek out an authoritative definition, use a subject specific dictionary or encyclopedia [e.g., if you are a sociology student, search for dictionaries of sociology]. A good database for obtaining definitive definitions of concepts or terms is Credo Reference .

Saba, Robert. The College Research Paper. Florida International University; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.

Another Writing Tip

When Do I Begin?

A common question asked at the start of any paper is, "Where should I begin?" An equally important question to ask yourself is, "When do I begin?" Research problems in the social sciences rarely rest in isolation from history. Therefore, it is important to lay a foundation for understanding the historical context underpinning the research problem. However, this information should be brief and succinct and begin at a point in time that illustrates the study's overall importance. For example, a study that investigates coffee cultivation and export in West Africa as a key stimulus for local economic growth needs to describe the beginning of exporting coffee in the region and establishing why economic growth is important. You do not need to give a long historical explanation about coffee exports in Africa. If a research problem requires a substantial exploration of the historical context, do this in the literature review section. In your introduction, make note of this as part of the "roadmap" [see below] that you use to describe the organization of your paper.

Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide . Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Always End with a Roadmap

The final paragraph or sentences of your introduction should forecast your main arguments and conclusions and provide a brief description of the rest of the paper [the "roadmap"] that let's the reader know where you are going and what to expect. A roadmap is important because it helps the reader place the research problem within the context of their own perspectives about the topic. In addition, concluding your introduction with an explicit roadmap tells the reader that you have a clear understanding of the structural purpose of your paper. In this way, the roadmap acts as a type of promise to yourself and to your readers that you will follow a consistent and coherent approach to addressing the topic of inquiry. Refer to it often to help keep your writing focused and organized.

Cassuto, Leonard. “On the Dissertation: How to Write the Introduction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education , May 28, 2018; Radich, Michael. A Student's Guide to Writing in East Asian Studies . (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Writing n. d.), pp. 35-37.

• << Previous: Executive Summary
• Next: The C.A.R.S. Model >>
• Last Updated: May 25, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

What is Research Design? Characteristics, Types, Process, & Examples

Link Copied

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Your search has come to an end!

Ever felt like a hamster on a research wheel fast, spinning with a million questions but going nowhere? You've got your topic; you're brimming with curiosity, but... what next? Think of it as your roadmap, ensuring you don't end up lost in a sea of confusing data. So, forget the research rut and get your papers! This ultimate guide to "what is research design?" will have you navigating your project like a pro, uncovering answers and avoiding dead ends. Know the features of good research design, what you mean by research design, elements of research design, and more.

What is Research Design?

Before starting with the topic, do you know what is research design in research? Well, research design is the plan that shows how the study will be done. This plan covers everything from how data will be collected to how it will be analysed. A good research design has a clear question to answer, a detailed plan for gathering information, and a way to make sense of the findings. A good research design has three key ingredients:

1. A clear question: What exactly are you trying to learn? ‍

2. Data collection: How will you gather information (surveys, interviews, experiments)?

3. Analysis: How will you make sense of the data you collect?

Elements of Research Design 

Now that you know what is research design, it is important to know the elements. The elements or components of research design help to ensure that it is reliable, valid and can yield meaningful results. They also provide a guide for the research process, helping the researcher from the initial stages of formulating the research question to the final stages of interpreting the findings. 

1. Purpose Statement: This is a clear and concise statement of the research objectives and the specific goals the research aims to achieve.

2. Research Questions: These are the specific questions the research aims to answer.

3. Research Methodology: This refers to the overall approach and specific methods used to collect and analyse data.

4. Data Collection Methods: These are the specific techniques used to gather data for the research.

5. Data Analysis Techniques: These are the methods used to analyse and interpret the collected data.

6. Units of Analysis: These are the specific entities (e.g., individuals, groups, organisations) that the research focuses on.

7. Linking Data to Propositions: This involves connecting the data collected to the research questions or hypotheses.

8. Interpretation of Findings: This involves making sense of the data and drawing conclusions based on the research objectives.

9. Possible Obstacles to the Research: This involves identifying potential challenges or issues that may arise during the research process.

10. Settings for Research Study: This refers to the context or environment in which the research is conducted.

11. Time of the Research Study: This refers to the timeframe of the research, whether it’s cross-sectional (at one specific point in time) or longitudinal (over an extended period).

Characteristics of Research Design

Research design has several key characteristics that contribute to the validity, reliability, and overall success of a research study. To know the answer for what is research design, it is important to know the characteristics. These are-

1. Reliability: A reliable research design ensures that each study’s results are accurate and can be replicated. This means that if the research is conducted again under the same conditions, it should yield similar results.

2. Validity: A valid research design uses appropriate measuring tools to gauge the results according to the research objective. This ensures that the data collected and the conclusions drawn are relevant and accurately reflect the phenomenon being studied.

3. Neutrality: A neutral research design ensures that the assumptions made at the beginning of the research are free from bias. This means that the data collected throughout the research is based on these unbiased assumptions.

4. Generalizability: A good research design draws an outcome that can be applied to a large set of people and is not limited to the sample size or the research group.

Got a hang of research, now book yout student accommodation with one click!

Book through amber today!

The Process of Research Design

What is research design? A good research helps you do a really good study that gives fair, trustworthy, and useful results. But it's also good to have a bit of wiggle room for changes. If you’re wondering how to conduct a research in just 5 mins , here's a breakdown and examples to work even better.

Step 1: Establish Priorities for Research Design: 

Before conducting any research study, you must address an important question: "what is research design and how to create one?" For example, if you're researching the impact of remote learning on student performance, your priority might be to establish a clear research question and objectives.

Step 2: Choose your Data Type you Need for Research

One of the best features of research design is to decide on the type of data you need for your research. For instance, if you’re studying the effects of a new drug, you might need quantitative data like clinical trial results.

There are lots of ways to answer your research questions. Think about what you want to achieve before you decide how to do your research. The first thing, do you know what is qualitative research design and what is quantitative research design? Here's a quick difference between the two:

What is Research Design in Quantitative Research?

There are 4 main types of quantitative research design- 

What are Research Design Examples?

1. Experimental Research Methods: 

Drug Efficacy Study: A pharmaceutical company wants to test the effectiveness of a new drug. They randomly assign participants to two groups: one group receives the new drug (experimental group), and the other group receives a placebo (control group). The company then measures the health outcomes of the two groups.

2. Quasi-Experimental Research Methods:

Teaching Method Evaluation: A researcher is interested in the impact of a new teaching method. A group of students are taught using the new method, while another group is taught using the traditional method. The researcher then compares the academic performance of the two groups.

3. Descriptive Research Methods:

Consumer Behavior Survey: A company wants to understand the shopping habits of their customers. They conduct a survey asking customers about their shopping frequency, preferred products, and reasons for their preferences.

4. Correlational Research Methods:

Health and Lifestyle Study: A health researcher is interested in the relationship between physical activity levels and heart disease. They collect data on the physical activity levels and heart health of a large group of people over several years. The researcher then analyses the data to see if there is a correlation between physical activity and heart disease

What is Qualitative Research Design?

Qualitative research designs are more flexible and open-ended. They're all about deeply understanding a particular situation or topic, and you have room to be imaginative and adaptable in planning your study. Below, you'll find a list of typical qualitative research designs.

Step 3: Decide your Data Collection Techniques

Now that you understand what is research design in research, you should also know the types of what are the different types of research design techniques. Choose the methods you’ll use to gather your data. If you’re surveying consumer behaviour, for example, you might use questionnaires or interviews.

Survey methods

Surveys are like questionnaires or interviews where you ask people about what they think, do, feel, or are like. They help you gather information straight from the source. So, when you're planning a research project, you can pick either questionnaires or interviews as your main way to get data. Research design is just the plan you make for how you're going to do your research, including what methods you'll use, like surveys.

Observation methods

Observational studies are a way to gather information without bothering anyone. You just watch and note down what you see, like people's actions or how they interact, without asking them directly. You can do this right then and there, jotting down stuff, or you can record videos to check out later. Depending on what you're studying, these observations can focus on describing things or counting them up.

Secondary Data

If you can't gather data yourself, you can use info already collected by other researchers, like from government surveys or past studies. You can then analyse this data to explore new questions. This can broaden your research because you might access bigger and more diverse samples. But, since you didn't collect the data yourself, you can't choose what to measure or how, which limits your conclusions.

In simple terms, research design is about how you plan to gather and analyse data to answer your research questions. If you can't collect data directly, you might use data already gathered by others, known as secondary data, to still answer your questions.

Step 4: Sort Out your Data Analysis

When you find what research design in research, just having a bunch of raw data isn't enough to answer your questions. You also need to figure out how you're going to make sense of that data. This is where research design comes in.

If you're working with quantitative research, you'll probably use statistics to analyse your data. Statistics help you understand things like how your data is spread out, what the average is, and how different groups compare. For example, you might use tests to see if there's a connection between two things or if one group is different from another.

But if you're dealing with more qualitative research, you'll need a different approach. Instead of crunching numbers, you'll be diving deep into your data, looking for patterns and meanings. You might use methods like thematic analysis or discourse analysis to make sense of it all.

Sampling Procedures

Choosing the right way to pick people for your study is important. But it's not just about that. You also need a solid plan for how you'll reach out and get those people to join in.

Here's what you need to think about:

1. How many people do you need to join to make sure your study is good?

2. What rules will you use to decide who can join and who can't?

3. How will you get in touch with them—by mail, online, phone, or meeting them in person?

4. If you're picking people randomly, it's crucial that everyone who gets chosen actually takes part. How can you make sure most of them do?

If you're not picking people randomly, how will you ensure that your study is unbiased and represents different kinds of people? 

Benefits of Research Design

After learning about what is research design and the process, it is important to know the key benefits of a well-structured research design:

1. Minimises Risk of Errors: A good research design minimises the risk of errors and reduces inaccuracy. It ensures that the study is carried out in the right direction and that all the team members are on the same page.

2. Efficient Use of Resources: It facilitates a concrete research plan for the efficient use of time and resources. It helps the researcher better complete all the tasks, even with limited resources.

3. Provides Direction: The purpose of the research design is to enable the researcher to proceed in the right direction without deviating from the tasks. It helps to identify the major and minor tasks of the study.

4. Ensures Validity and Reliability: A well-designed research enhances the validity and reliability of the findings and allows for the replication of studies by other researchers. The main advantage of a good research design is that it provides accuracy, reliability, consistency, and legitimacy to the research.

5. Facilitates Problem-Solving: A researcher can easily frame the objectives of the research work based on the design of experiments (research design). A good research design helps the researcher find the best solution for the research problems.

6. Better Documentation: It helps in better documentation of the various activities while the project work is going on.

That's it! You've explored all the answers for what is research design in research? Remember, it's not just about picking a fancy method – it's about choosing the perfect tool to answer your burning questions. By carefully considering your goals and resources, you can design a research plan that gathers reliable information and helps you reach clear conclusions. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 4 types of research design, what are the important concepts of research design, what are the 5 components of a research, what are different types of research, what are the 4 major elements of a research design.

Your ideal student home & a flight ticket awaits

Follow us on :

Related Posts

UCAS Appliation 2024: Latest Updates On Application & Deadline

Career Mapping: What is it and how to do it?

Explore The Top 10 Tuition Free Universities in Germany

Planning to Study Abroad ?

Your ideal student accommodation is a few steps away! Please fill in your details below so we can find you a new home!

We have got your response

amber © 2024. All rights reserved.

4.8/5 on Trustpilot

Rated as "Excellent" • 4800+ Reviews by students

Rated as "Excellent" • 4800+ Reviews by Students

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

What Are The Elements Of A Good Research Proposal?

by  Antony W

March 10, 2023

The key to writing a great research proposal for your upcoming research project is to make sure the document has the right structure.

Your paper must include all the components that your professor expects to see. So in this guide, we’ll outline all the elements of a good research proposal and explain why they’re important.

The elements of a good research proposal are the title, the introduction, literature review, aims and objectives, methodology, scope of the research, outline and timetable, and bibliography.

It’s important to include these elements in your research proposal exactly in the order in which they appear in the list above.

Why The Key Elements Of A Research Proposal Matter

The basic elements of a research proposal are important because they communicate your thought process, present the originality of your ideas, and demonstrate that you’re passionate about the subject in question.

If you structure and write your research proposal well, your paper can convince your professor that your project is feasible and you have what it takes to take   your research project to the next level.

Have no time to read this guide and would rather get quick writing help? Let us write your research proposal for you! 

7 Key Elements of a Research Proposal 

While developing a detailed and comprehensive research proposal requires a lot of planning, attention to details, and academic writing skills , understanding the core elements of the paper is the first step to getting your proposal accepted.

So here are the elements that you should include in your research proposal.

It sounds somewhat obvious when we say that your research proposal with a title. To say the least, you already know you should.

But perhaps the most common mistake that many students make is to write general titles that lack focus.

Instead of writing a long title that’s hard to read or a short title that fails to highlight the theme of your research, write a clear and concise headline that tells your reader what your research proposal is about at a first glance.

2. Introduction

The starting paragraph to a research project is one of the elements of a good research proposal because it introduces the subject you wish to address or a research problem you wish to analyze.

Because the introduction of a research proposal is what sets the tone for the rest of the paper, it’s important to start with a hook and then organize your thoughts in a logical and organized manner.

The introduction to your research proposal should give background information and explain why you believe a research question is worth exploring. While not mandatory, you can briefly describe your methodologies in the introduction and then expand them later on.

Your introduction should be clear and concise. Make sure you include only the most relevant information in this section so you don’t make it unnecessarily too long.

3. Literature Review

Although a research proposal doesn’t include a full literature review , it’s important to include an overview of the most significant studies in your field.

The section should feature evidence and statistical data to demonstrate the significance of your research.

Through the literature review, you can easily draw your reader’s attention to existing research, identify gaps in existing studies, and make your reader understand how your proposal will contribute to the already existing research.

4. Aims and Objectives

Aims and objectives are what you wish your research proposal to accomplish. Your aims will be your overall outcome or what you want the research to achieve.

Objectives tend to be narrower and more focused. More often than not, you need to provide an explanation for each of your objectives to show how they will help to meet the aims of your study.

Unless required, you don’t really have to include a hypothesis that your research proposal looks forward to test.

5. Research Methodology

Methodologies are simply the research methods you will use to conduct your study and they must appear in your research proposal whether or not you’re conducting an experimental research.

The methodologies include analysis and sampling techniques equipment, research approaches, and ethical concerns.

Make sure your explanation for each methodology is clear and precise. It helps to justify why you’ve chosen to use a certain methodology over an alternative. This will go a long way to show that you took your time to think about your methodologies before picking them.

It’s important to explain how you will collect data, the sample size you plan to consider for your research investigation, and the techniques you consider the most appropriate to analyze the data.

6. Scope of the Research

Because you’ll be working with limited time and resource, it’s reasonable to include a section on the scope of the research in your proposal. In other words, you have to show your reader that you can start and complete your research within the constraints of these two resources.

Remember, your research will more than likely have limits, and addressing them in this section not only shows that you have given them a thought but also makes your research proposal strong and authentic.

Don’t just focus on the challenges that you’re likely to come across during your studies. You should also propose alternative solutions that you can use and why they might help.

7. Outline and Timetable

Your professor expects to see an outline and a timetable in your research proposal so it’s important that you include them in your research proposal.

The purpose of the outline is to show how you plan to structure your dissertation . Briefly note what each section will cover and explain how it all fits into the argument of your research project.

The purpose of the timetable is to show how much time you’ll need to complete your research. In particular, you need to make sure you mention exactly how long you expect each stage of your study to take.

Don’t just mention how long the research process will take. Make sure you also indicate how long you’ll take to compile your research.

Get Help with Research Proposal Writing

Knowing the elements of a good research proposal is one thing. Writing the proposal is where there’s a lot of work. If you don’t have the time to complete the work yourself, feel free to take advantage of our research proposal writing and get the paper done on time.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Research Design: What it is, Elements & Types

Can you imagine doing research without a plan? Probably not. When we discuss a strategy to collect, study, and evaluate data, we talk about research design. This design addresses problems and creates a consistent and logical model for data analysis. Let’s learn more about it.

What is Research Design?

Research design is the framework of research methods and techniques chosen by a researcher to conduct a study. The design allows researchers to sharpen the research methods suitable for the subject matter and set up their studies for success.

Creating a research topic explains the type of research (experimental,  survey research ,  correlational , semi-experimental, review) and its sub-type (experimental design, research problem , descriptive case-study). 

There are three main types of designs for research:

• Data collection
• Measurement
• Data Analysis

The research problem an organization faces will determine the design, not vice-versa. The design phase of a study determines which tools to use and how they are used.

The Process of Research Design

The research design process is a systematic and structured approach to conducting research. The process is essential to ensure that the study is valid, reliable, and produces meaningful results.

• Consider your aims and approaches: Determine the research questions and objectives, and identify the theoretical framework and methodology for the study.
• Choose a type of Research Design: Select the appropriate research design, such as experimental, correlational, survey, case study, or ethnographic, based on the research questions and objectives.
• Identify your population and sampling method: Determine the target population and sample size, and choose the sampling method, such as random , stratified random sampling , or convenience sampling.
• Choose your data collection methods: Decide on the data collection methods , such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments, and select the appropriate instruments or tools for collecting data.
• Plan your data collection procedures: Develop a plan for data collection, including the timeframe, location, and personnel involved, and ensure ethical considerations.
• Decide on your data analysis strategies: Select the appropriate data analysis techniques, such as statistical analysis , content analysis, or discourse analysis, and plan how to interpret the results.

The process of research design is a critical step in conducting research. By following the steps of research design, researchers can ensure that their study is well-planned, ethical, and rigorous.

Research Design Elements

Impactful research usually creates a minimum bias in data and increases trust in the accuracy of collected data. A design that produces the slightest margin of error in experimental research is generally considered the desired outcome. The essential elements are:

• Accurate purpose statement
• Techniques to be implemented for collecting and analyzing research
• The method applied for analyzing collected details
• Type of research methodology
• Probable objections to research
• Settings for the research study
• Measurement of analysis

Characteristics of Research Design

A proper design sets your study up for success. Successful research studies provide insights that are accurate and unbiased. You’ll need to create a survey that meets all of the main characteristics of a design. There are four key characteristics:

• Neutrality: When you set up your study, you may have to make assumptions about the data you expect to collect. The results projected in the research should be free from research bias and neutral. Understand opinions about the final evaluated scores and conclusions from multiple individuals and consider those who agree with the results.
• Reliability: With regularly conducted research, the researcher expects similar results every time. You’ll only be able to reach the desired results if your design is reliable. Your plan should indicate how to form research questions to ensure the standard of results.
• Validity: There are multiple measuring tools available. However, the only correct measuring tools are those which help a researcher in gauging results according to the objective of the research. The  questionnaire  developed from this design will then be valid.
• Generalization:  The outcome of your design should apply to a population and not just a restricted sample . A generalized method implies that your survey can be conducted on any part of a population with similar accuracy.

The above factors affect how respondents answer the research questions, so they should balance all the above characteristics in a good design. If you want, you can also learn about Selection Bias through our blog.

Research Design Types

A researcher must clearly understand the various types to select which model to implement for a study. Like the research itself, the design of your analysis can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative.

Qualitative research

Qualitative research determines relationships between collected data and observations based on mathematical calculations. Statistical methods can prove or disprove theories related to a naturally existing phenomenon. Researchers rely on qualitative observation research methods that conclude “why” a particular theory exists and “what” respondents have to say about it.

Quantitative research

Quantitative research is for cases where statistical conclusions to collect actionable insights are essential. Numbers provide a better perspective for making critical business decisions. Quantitative research methods are necessary for the growth of any organization. Insights drawn from complex numerical data and analysis prove to be highly effective when making decisions about the business’s future.

Qualitative Research vs Quantitative Research

Here is a chart that highlights the major differences between qualitative and quantitative research:

In summary or analysis , the step of qualitative research is more exploratory and focuses on understanding the subjective experiences of individuals, while quantitative research is more focused on objective data and statistical analysis.

You can further break down the types of research design into five categories:

1. Descriptive: In a descriptive composition, a researcher is solely interested in describing the situation or case under their research study. It is a theory-based design method created by gathering, analyzing, and presenting collected data. This allows a researcher to provide insights into the why and how of research. Descriptive design helps others better understand the need for the research. If the problem statement is not clear, you can conduct exploratory research. 

2. Experimental: Experimental research establishes a relationship between the cause and effect of a situation. It is a causal research design where one observes the impact caused by the independent variable on the dependent variable. For example, one monitors the influence of an independent variable such as a price on a dependent variable such as customer satisfaction or brand loyalty. It is an efficient research method as it contributes to solving a problem.

The independent variables are manipulated to monitor the change it has on the dependent variable. Social sciences often use it to observe human behavior by analyzing two groups. Researchers can have participants change their actions and study how the people around them react to understand social psychology better.

3. Correlational research: Correlational research  is a non-experimental research technique. It helps researchers establish a relationship between two closely connected variables. There is no assumption while evaluating a relationship between two other variables, and statistical analysis techniques calculate the relationship between them. This type of research requires two different groups.

A correlation coefficient determines the correlation between two variables whose values range between -1 and +1. If the correlation coefficient is towards +1, it indicates a positive relationship between the variables, and -1 means a negative relationship between the two variables. 

4. Diagnostic research: In diagnostic design, the researcher is looking to evaluate the underlying cause of a specific topic or phenomenon. This method helps one learn more about the factors that create troublesome situations. 

This design has three parts of the research:

• Inception of the issue
• Diagnosis of the issue
• Solution for the issue

5. Explanatory research : Explanatory design uses a researcher’s ideas and thoughts on a subject to further explore their theories. The study explains unexplored aspects of a subject and details the research questions’ what, how, and why.

Benefits of Research Design

There are several benefits of having a well-designed research plan. Including:

• Clarity of research objectives: Research design provides a clear understanding of the research objectives and the desired outcomes.
• Increased validity and reliability: To ensure the validity and reliability of results, research design help to minimize the risk of bias and helps to control extraneous variables.
• Improved data collection: Research design helps to ensure that the proper data is collected and data is collected systematically and consistently.
• Better data analysis: Research design helps ensure that the collected data can be analyzed effectively, providing meaningful insights and conclusions.
• Improved communication: A well-designed research helps ensure the results are clean and influential within the research team and external stakeholders.
• Efficient use of resources: reducing the risk of waste and maximizing the impact of the research, research design helps to ensure that resources are used efficiently.

A well-designed research plan is essential for successful research, providing clear and meaningful insights and ensuring that resources are practical.

QuestionPro offers a comprehensive solution for researchers looking to conduct research. With its user-friendly interface, robust data collection and analysis tools, and the ability to integrate results from multiple sources, QuestionPro provides a versatile platform for designing and executing research projects.

Our robust suite of research tools provides you with all you need to derive research results. Our online survey platform includes custom point-and-click logic and advanced question types. Uncover the insights that matter the most.

FREE TRIAL         LEARN MORE

MORE LIKE THIS

Top 10 Dynata Alternatives & Competitors

May 27, 2024

What Are My Employees Really Thinking? The Power of Open-ended Survey Analysis

May 24, 2024

I Am Disconnected – Tuesday CX Thoughts

May 21, 2024

20 Best Customer Success Tools of 2024

May 20, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

More From Forbes

3 ways napping boosts health, happiness and performance.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Napping is linked with all kinds of benefits.

For those who love to nap regularly, there is no question about its benefits, but is there actual evidence that napping is good for you? Yes! It turns out that napping is linked with greater brain size and function, better physical health, increased performance at work—and even with more happiness.

Today’s frenetic pace can leave you exhausted, and stress can get in the way of a good night’s sleep. But napping can help—and the science behind the benefits make a solid case for even those who are nap skeptics or nap-resistant.

Why You Need A Nap

Significant numbers of people don’t get enough sleep, with 43% reporting they get only six hours a night—while the NIH recommends 7-9 hours. In addition, 21% of people wake up in the morning feeling tired, according to surveys by MattressNextDay .

People’s sleep is interrupted by all kinds of issues, and most prevalent are worries about work, with 70% of those 18-24 reporting their job gets in the way of their sleep and 54% of those 35-44 and 42% of those over 55 saying the same. All of this is according to data from Expert Express and YouGov .

Too little sleep is linked with all kinds of problems from cardiovascular issues and obesity to decreases in longevity and increases in mental health issues like depression and anxiety.

Sleep even has an effect on leadership and inspiration. When leaders got less sleep they weren’t as capable of inspiring team members, and when team members got less sleep, they had less capacity to feel inspiration, according to research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology .

Samsung Slashes Galaxy S24 Price In A Major New Promotion

This is your last chance to shop these 114 best memorial day sales, get up to 50 off during the hoka memorial day sale.

But naps can make up for poor sleep at night, according to reserach published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

Napping can contribute to your health and happiness.

Gain The Benefits of Napping

Naps have all kinds of compelling benefits.

• Performance and Memory . Napping improved reaction time, alertness, memory and performance, according to research published in the Journal of Sleep Research .
• Creativity and Problem Solving . A brief nap was also able to increase creativity and improve problem solving, based on research in Science Advances .
• Cognitive Function . Those who napped had larger total brain volume and better cognitive function, according to research in the Journal of Sleep Health .
• Focus and Productivity . Napping helped people be more focused, productive and creative, based on research at University of Hertfordshire .
• Happiness . Napping also led to reports of people feeling greater happiness, based on additional studies at the University of Hertfordshire.

Plenty of cultures agree with the benefits of naps. In fact, napping is recognized in Spain, China and Japan as a health and productivity-booster—where it is called inemuri or “sleeping while present.”

How To Nap for the Biggest Benefits

But all napping isn’t the same. These are the napping habits that will help you capture the greatest benefits.

1. Nap for Short Periods

Short naps are best, based on research. Keep your naps to less than 30 minutes or 45 minutes maximum. Research has demonstrated that longer naps may detract from health—but shorter naps are linked with all kinds of health and happiness.

In fact, 66% of those who took short naps reported feeling happy, compared with 56% of those who took longer naps, based on the University of Hertfordshire data.

2. Nap in the Early Afternoon

It’s best to nap in alignment with your circadian rhythms. For most people, this means napping in the early afternoon, when you’re more naturally tired or relaxed. Some also suggest finishing your nap by about two o’clock, so you don’t interfere with your nighttime sleep schedule.

3. Nap Regularly

You can also give yourself permission to nap regularly. In fact, those who napped routinely showed the biggest benefits in their napping—especially related to cognitive function and happiness, based on research published in Progress in Brain Research .

Napping Is A Very Good Idea

Napping may seem like a panacea—delivering everything from better memory and performance to greater mental health and longevity—and perhaps it is.

So embrace napping and rest in the knowledge of its benefits!

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Home Energy & Utilities

Climate Change Is Making Rooftop Solar More Valuable, Research Shows

In a warmer world, it will take more energy to cool people off. Rooftop solar could step in to fill the energy gap.

As temperatures rise and places get sunnier, solar can be more valuable.

Last year was the hottest year on record . This year could beat it .

Thanks to the past and ongoing fossil fuel use that drives climate change, more people are going to need more energy to keep cool, comfortable and safe. When it comes to the increased electricity demand for household cooling, rooftop solar panels  can fill some of that void and save homeowners even more money down the road than it does today.

That's according to new research published in the journal Nature Climate Change , which models the value of a rooftop solar system in a changing climate. For nearly all the 17 cities the researchers analyzed, rooftop solar got more valuable in 2050 and 2100 than it is today.

Can solar panels save you money?

Interested in understanding the impact solar can have on your home? Enter some basic information below, and we’ll instantly provide a free estimate of your energy savings.

"Across all but one of our cities, households see an increase in the value of their rooftop solar by midcentury and by end of century," said Michael Craig , a professor in energy systems at the University of Michigan and one of the researchers involved in the study.

How climate change makes solar more valuable

Solar is valuable to homeowners in two ways: by helping them avoid buying energy from their utility and by earning them more savings for sending energy back to the grid. Recent regulation has made returning electricity to the grid less valuable in some places. 

"In general, it's better to consume the electricity you produce than it is to sell it off onto the distribution grid," said Craig. "You basically get paid a better premium for it if you consume it yourself."

That's why solar batteries , which let you avoid even more grid electricity by saving solar energy for later, can be a money-saving investment for some people. (The impact of battery storage is one thing the study doesn't fully consider, Craig said.)

Considering Solar Panels?

In a changing climate, solar panels can be more valuable because they'll produce more energy in places where it gets sunnier and offset more energy with an increase in demand for air conditioning.

Air conditioning uses 6% of all the electricity generated in the US, according to the Department of Energy, and makes up a significant portion of a home's electricity bill . Besides keeping people comfortable, it can also keep them safe as  dangerously hot weather is expected to increase .

Projected average maximum temperatures for May from 2090-2099.

Miami, the city with the largest jump in rooftop solar's value, sees a 14% increase by the end of the century because cooling demand will go up while the city gets less cloudy. 

The only city that saw the value of solar decrease, Minneapolis, is likely to see solar panels produce less energy because it will be cloudier in the future. Other cities will also get cloudier, but the increased demand for cooling still makes solar panels more valuable.

Rooftop solar systems, which can last for decades , are often sized to match a house's past demand. Considering future conditions could help unlock even more value from rooftop solar.

"When you put a rooftop solar system in place, that's gonna be operating for 10, 20, maybe 30 years," Craig said. "If you put a panel on your roof today, that's gonna be operating in a midcentury context."

It can cost thousands of dollars to install solar panels on your home , but they can recoup that cost and more. Some sources put the payback period on rooftop solar panels at eight to nine years , though that timeline varies depending on factors like a state or utility's solar feed-in tariff . 

Solar Installer Guides

• Best Solar Panels
• Best Solar Batteries
• Most Efficient Solar Panels
• Best Solar Companies
• Best Solar Shingles
• Best Portable Solar Panels
• Best Solar Generators
• Best Solar Inverters
• Tesla Solar Panels Review
• Tesla Solar Roof Review
• Sunrun Solar Panels Review
• GAF Energy Review
• Sunnova Solar Review
• Smartflower Solar Review
• SunPower Review
• Trinity Solar Review
• ADT Solar Review
• Enphase Battery Review
• Tesla Powerwall Review
• Sunpower Sunvault Review
• Generac Pwrcell Review
• Sonnen Battery Review
• LG ESS Home 8 Review
• Panasonic Evervolt Battery Review
• Why Solar Panels Will Likely Keep Getting Cheaper
• How to Make Your Solar Panels Last Longer
• How the Solar Tax Credit Works
• How Much Do Solar Panels Cost?
• This Is How Many Solar Panels You'll Need to Power Your Home
• Solar Power Purchase Agreements Explained: The Pros and Cons
• Free Solar Panels: What's in the Fine Print?
• Avoid Solar Panel Scams: 7 Tips for Getting a Great Deal
• Solar Panels Will Eventually Save You Money. How to Know When the real Savings Begin
• This Is How Long You Can Expect Your Solar Panel Installation to Take
• The Pros and Cons of Solar Panels

Other Energy Saving Guides

• Best Smart Thermostats
• Best Portable Power Stations
• Ecobee Smart Thermostat Premium vs. Ecobee Smart Thermostat Enhanced
• Home Generator Buying Guide
• Heat Pump vs. Furnace
• Anker Portable Power Station
• Ecobee Smart Thermostat Enhanced vs. Nest Thermostat
• Nest Learning Thermostat vs. Nest Thermostat
• Storage Tank Water Heaters vs. Tankless Water Heaters
• Ecobee Smart Thermostat Premium vs. Ecobee Smart
• Moving Off- Grid: My Ultimate Pandemic Project Is About More Than Utility Bills
• How Living With Solar Panels Demystified Electricity for Me
• For Life Off the Grid, Batteries Mean Independence
• The Biggest Pros and Cons of Living Off-Grid Arent What I Expected
• The Hidden (and Not So Hidden) Expenses of Living Off Grid
• My Off-Grid Project: The Secrets I Learned to Save on Solar

Article updated on May 17, 2024 at 6:00 AM PDT

Our Experts

• Master's degree in environmental journalism

We thoroughly evaluate each company and product we review and ensure our stories meet our high editorial standards.

Instantly estimate your solar cost and savings. Pick a provider later.

Antioxidants

Often used as a marketing buzzword, learn about the role of antioxidants beyond the hype, and some of the research on health and disease prevention.

Jump to: – What are antioxidants? – Health benefits of antioxidants: what’s the buzz? – Studies of antioxidant supplements and disease prevention – Antioxidants in food – Bottom line on antioxidants and disease prevention

What are antioxidants?

The body’s trillion or so cells face formidable threats, from lack of food to infection with a virus. Another constant threat comes from chemicals called free radicals. In very high levels, they are capable of damaging cells and genetic material. The body generates free radicals as the inevitable byproducts of turning food into energy. Free radicals are also formed after exercising or exposure to cigarette smoke, air pollution, and sunlight. [1]

Free radicals come in many shapes, sizes, and chemical configurations. What they all share is a voracious appetite for electrons, stealing them from any nearby substances that will yield them. This electron theft can radically alter the “loser’s” structure or function. Free radical damage can change the instructions coded in a strand of DNA. It can make a circulating low-density lipoprotein (LDL, sometimes called bad cholesterol) molecule more likely to get trapped in an artery wall. Or it can alter a cell’s membrane, changing the flow of what enters the cell and what leaves it. An excessive chronic amount of free radicals in the body causes a condition called oxidative stress, which may damage cells and lead to chronic diseases. [2]

We aren’t defenseless against free radicals. The body, long used to this relentless attack, makes many molecules that quench free radicals as surely as water douses fire. We also extract free-radical fighters from food. These defenders are labeled “antioxidants.” They work by generously giving electrons to free radicals without turning into electron-scavenging substances themselves. They are also involved in mechanisms that repair DNA and maintain the health of cells.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of different substances that can act as antioxidants. The most familiar ones are vitamin C , vitamin E , beta-carotene , and other related carotenoids, along with the minerals selenium and manganese. They’re joined by glutathione, coenzyme Q10, lipoic acid, flavonoids, phenols, polyphenols, phytoestrogens, and many more.  Most are naturally occurring, and their presence in food is likely to prevent oxidation or to serve as a natural defense against the local environment.

But using the term “antioxidant” to refer to substances is misleading. It is really a chemical property, namely, the ability to act as an electron donor. Some substances that act as antioxidants in one situation may be pro-oxidants—electron grabbers—in a different situation. Another big misconception is that antioxidants are interchangeable. They aren’t. Each one has unique chemical behaviors and biological properties. They almost certainly evolved as parts of elaborate networks, with each different substance (or family of substances) playing slightly different roles. This means that no single substance can do the work of the whole crowd.

Health benefits of antioxidants: what’s the buzz?

Antioxidants came to public attention in the 1990s, when scientists began to understand that free radical damage was involved in the early stages of artery-clogging atherosclerosis. It was also linked to cancer , vision loss, and a host of other chronic conditions. Some studies showed that people with low intakes of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables were at greater risk for developing these chronic conditions than were people who ate plenty of those foods. Clinical trials began testing the impact of single substances in supplement form, especially beta-carotene and vitamin E, as weapons against chronic diseases.

Even before the results of these trials were in, the media and the supplement and food industries began to hype the benefits of “antioxidants.” Frozen berries, green tea, and other foods labeled as being rich in antioxidants began popping up in stores. Supplement makers touted the disease-fighting properties of all sorts of antioxidants.

The research results were mixed, but most did not find the hoped-for benefits. Most research teams reported that vitamin E and other antioxidant supplements didn’t protect against heart disease or cancer. [3] One study even showed that taking beta-carotene supplements actually increased the chances of developing lung cancer in smokers. On the other hand, some trials reported benefits; for example, after 18 years of follow-up, the Physicians’ Health Study found that taking beta-carotene supplements was associated with a modest reduction in the rate of cognitive decline. [4]

These mostly disappointing results haven’t stopped food companies and supplement sellers from banking on antioxidants. Antioxidants are still added to breakfast cereals, sports bars, energy drinks, and other processed foods , and they are promoted as additives that can prevent heart disease, cancer, cataracts, memory loss, and other conditions.

Often the claims have stretched and distorted the data: While it’s true that the package of antioxidants, minerals , fiber , and other substances found naturally in fruits , vegetables , and whole grains helps prevent a variety of chronic diseases , it is unlikely that high doses of antioxidant supplements can accomplish the same feat.

Antioxidant foods hyped to super-status

Antioxidant supplements and disease prevention: little supportive evidence.

Randomized placebo-controlled trials, which can provide the strongest evidence, offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest trials have been mostly negative.

Vitamin E, beta-carotene, and other antioxidants in supplement form aren’t the silver bullet against heart disease and stroke that researchers were hoping for.  A modest effect of vitamin E has been found in some studies but more research is needed.

• In the Women’s Health Study, 39,876 initially healthy women took 600 IU of natural source vitamin E or a placebo every other day for 10 years. At the study’s end, the rates of major cardiovascular events and cancer were no lower among those taking vitamin E than those taking the placebo. However, the trial did observe a significant 24% reduction in total cardiovascular mortality. Although this was not a primary endpoint for the trial, it nevertheless represents an important outcome. [6]
• Earlier large vitamin E trials, conducted among individuals with previously diagnosed coronary disease or at high risk for it, generally showed no benefit. In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial, the rates of major cardiovascular events were essentially the same in the vitamin E (21.5%) and placebo (20.6%) groups, although participants taking vitamin E had higher risks of heart failure and hospitalization for heart failure. [7] In the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI) trial, the results were mixed but mostly showed no preventive effects after more than three years of treatment with vitamin E among 11,000 heart attack survivors. [8] However, some studies suggest potential benefits among certain subgroups. A recent trial of vitamin E in Israel, for example, showed a marked reduction in coronary heart disease among people with type 2 diabetes who have a common genetic predisposition for greater oxidative stress. [9]
• Beta-carotene, meanwhile, did not provide any protection against heart disease or stroke, as demonstrated by the Physicians’ Health Study. [10]
• What about combinations? In the Supplementation en Vitamines et Mineraux Antioxydants (SU.VI.MAX) study, 13,017 French men and women took a single daily capsule that contained 120 mg vitamin C, 30 mg vitamin E, 6 mg beta-carotene, 100 mcg selenium, and 20 mg zinc, or a placebo, for seven and a half years. The vitamins had no effect on overall rates of cardiovascular disease. [11]
• In the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study, vitamin E, vitamin C, and beta-carotene had similar effects as a placebo on myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death, although there was a modest and significant benefit for vitamin E among women with existing cardiovascular disease. [12]

A 2014 study from the Journal of Respiratory Research found that different isoforms of vitamin E (called tocopherols) had opposing effects on lung function. [13] The study analyzed data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) cohort and measured serum levels of alpha- and gamma-tocopherol in 4,526 adults. Lung function was tested using spirometric parameters: higher parameters are indicative of increased lung function, while lower parameters are indicative of decreased lung function. The study found that higher serum levels of alpha-tocopherol were associated with higher spirometric parameters and that high serum levels of gamma-tocopherol were associated with lower spirometric parameters. Though the study was observational in nature, it confirmed the mechanistic pathway of alpha- and gamma-tocopherol in mice studies. [14]

When it comes to cancer prevention, the picture remains inconclusive for antioxidant supplements. Few trials have gone on long enough to provide an adequate test for cancer.

• In the long-term Physicians’ Health Study, cancer rates were similar among men taking beta-carotene and among those taking a placebo. [10] Other trials have also largely shown no effect, including HOPE. [7]
• The SU.VI.MAX randomized placebo-controlled trial showed a reduction in cancer risk and all-cause mortality among men taking an antioxidant cocktail (low doses of vitamins C and E, beta-carotene, selenium, and zinc) but no apparent effect in women, possibly because men tended to have low blood levels of beta-carotene and other vitamins at the beginning of the study. [11]
• A randomized trial of selenium in people with skin cancer demonstrated significant reductions in cancer and cancer mortality at various sites, including colon, lung, and prostate. [15]  The effects were strongest among those with low selenium levels at baseline.
• A six-year trial, the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), found that a combination of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and zinc offered some protection against the development of advanced age-related macular degeneration, but not cataracts, in people who were at high risk of the disease. [16,17]
• Lutein, a naturally occurring carotenoid found in green, leafy vegetables such as spinach and kale, may protect vision. However, relatively short trials of lutein supplementation for age-related macular degeneration have yielded conflicting findings. [18,19] A follow-up trial to the AREDS, the AREDS2, examined lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation on late age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in men and women for up to five years. [20] It found a favorable but not significant effect of the supplements on AMD.
• A Cochrane review of 19 randomized controlled trials compared antioxidant vitamin/mineral supplements (multivitamin, vitamin E, lutein, zeaxanthin, zinc) with placebo or no intervention in people with AMD. [21] The participants were generally well-nourished. The study found that people taking the vitamins were less likely to progress to late-stage AMD and vision loss. However, the study authors noted that taking lutein and zeaxanthin alone or vitamin E alone did not have a beneficial effect on these eye conditions.
• The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) Eye Endpoints Study, which followed 11,267 men for a mean of five years, did not find that vitamin E and selenium supplements, in combination or alone, protected from age-related cataracts. [22]
• The Physicians’ Health Study II, a randomized trial giving 50 mg beta-carotene supplements or a placebo to 5,956 men older than 65 years, found that longer-term supplementation for at least 15 years provided cognitive benefits. [4]
• The Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium (PREADViSE) trial followed more than 3,700 men ages 60 and older for six years. It did not find that antioxidant supplements of vitamin E or selenium, alone or in combination, protected against dementia compared with a placebo. [23]
• A meta-analysis of 68 antioxidant supplement trials found that taking beta-carotene and vitamin A and E supplements increased the risk of dying. [24] Although healthy participants were included in 21 of the trials, most of the studies included people who already had some type of serious illness. It was also difficult to compare interventions because the types of supplements, the dosages taken, and the length of time they were taken varied widely.
• The same authors conducted another systematic review of 78 randomized clinical trials on antioxidant supplements including beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium (alone or in combination). [25]   Again, the majority of trials included people with various established diseases. The study found that both people who were healthy and those with diseases taking beta-carotene and vitamin E supplements had a higher rate of death. The duration of the studies varied widely from one month to 12 years, with varying dosages.

If antioxidants were harmless, it wouldn’t much matter if you took them “just in case.” A few studies, though, have raised the possibility that taking antioxidant supplements, either single agents or combinations, could interfere with health.

• The first inkling came in a large trial of beta-carotene conducted among men in Finland who were heavy smokers, and therefore at high risk for developing lung cancer. The trial was stopped early when researchers saw a significant increase in lung cancer among those taking the supplement compared to those taking the placebo. [26]
• In another trial among heavy smokers and people exposed to asbestos, beta-carotene was combined with vitamin A. Again, an increase in lung cancer was seen in the supplement group. [27] Not all trials of beta-carotene show this harmful effect, however. In the Physicians’ Health Study, which included few active smokers, no increase in lung cancer or any other adverse affect was seen even after 18 years of follow-up. [10]
• In the SU.VI.MAX trial, rates of skin cancer were higher in women who were assigned to take vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium, and zinc. [28]
• Vitamin E supplements were found to significantly increase the risk of prostate cancer by 17% in healthy men compared with those who took a placebo. These results came from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) that followed 35,533 men for up to 12 years. [29]

High-dose antioxidant supplements can also interfere with medicines. Vitamin E supplements can have a blood-thinning effect and increase the risk of bleeding in people who are already taking blood-thinning medicines. Some studies have suggested that taking antioxidant supplements during cancer treatment might interfere with the effectiveness of the treatment. Inform your doctor if starting supplements of any kind. [1]

Antioxidants in food

One possible reason why many studies on antioxidant supplements do not show a health benefit is because antioxidants tend to work best in combination with other nutrients, plant chemicals, and even other antioxidants.

For example, a cup of fresh strawberries contains about 80 mg of vitamin C, a nutrient classified as having high antioxidant activity. But a supplement containing 500 mg of vitamin C (667% of the RDA) does not contain the plant chemicals (polyphenols) naturally found in strawberries like proanthocyanins and flavonoids, which also possess antioxidant activity and may team up with vitamin C to fight disease.  Polyphenols also have many other chemical properties besides their ability to serve as antioxidants.  There is a question if a nutrient with antioxidant activity can cause the opposite effect with pro-oxidant activity if too much is taken. This is why using an antioxidant supplement with a single isolated substance may not be an effective strategy for everyone.

Differences in the amount and type of antioxidants in foods versus those in supplements might also influence their effects. For example, there are eight chemical forms of vitamin E present in foods. However, vitamin E supplements typically only include one form, alpha-tocopherol. [1]

Epidemiological prospective studies show that higher intakes of antioxidant-rich fruits, vegetables, and legumes are associated with a lower risk of chronic oxidative stress-related diseases like cardiovascular diseases , cancer, and deaths from all causes. [30-33] A plant-based diet is believed to protect against chronic oxidative stress-related diseases.  [2] It is not clear if this protective effect is due to the antioxidants, other substances in the foods, or a combination of both. The following are nutrients with antioxidant activity and the foods in which they are found:

• Vitamin C : Broccoli, Brussels sprouts , cantaloupe, cauliflower, grapefruit, leafy greens (turnip, mustard, beet, collards), honeydew, kale , kiwi, lemon, orange, papaya, snow peas, strawberries, sweet potato , tomatoes, and bell peppers (all colors)
• Vitamin E : Almonds , avocado, Swiss chard, leafy greens (beet, mustard, turnip), peanuts, red peppers, spinach (boiled), and sunflower seeds
• Carotenoids including beta-carotene and lycopene: Apricots, asparagus, beets, broccoli, cantaloupe, carrots, bell peppers, kale , mangos, turnip and collard greens, oranges, peaches, pink grapefruit, pumpkin, winter squash , spinach, sweet potato , tangerines, tomatoes, and watermelon
• Selenium: Brazil nuts, fish, shellfish, beef, poultry, barley, brown rice
• Zinc : Beef, poultry, oysters, shrimp, sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, chickpeas , lentils , cashews, fortified cereals
• Phenolic compounds: Quercetin ( apples , red wine, onions), catechins ( tea , cocoa , berries), resveratrol ( red and white wine , grapes, peanuts, berries), coumaric acid (spices, berries), anthocyanins (blueberries, strawberries)

Bottom line on antioxidants and disease prevention

Excessive free radicals contribute to chronic diseases including cancer, heart disease, cognitive decline, and vision loss. This doesn’t automatically mean that substances with antioxidant properties will fix the problem, especially if they are taken out of their natural context. The studies so far are inconclusive but generally don’t provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease. Keep in mind that most of the trials conducted have had fundamental limitations due to their relatively short duration and inclusion of people with existing disease. At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole in fruits , vegetables , and whole grains —all rich in networks of naturally occurring antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many scourges of aging.

• National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Antioxidants: In Depth. https://nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants/introduction.htm Accessed 7/1/19.
• Carlsen MH, Halvorsen BL, Holte K, Bøhn SK, Dragland S, Sampson L, Willey C, Senoo H, Umezono Y, Sanada C, Barikmo I. The total antioxidant content of more than 3100 foods, beverages, spices, herbs and supplements used worldwide. Nutrition journal . 2010 Dec;9(1):3.
• Semba RD, Ferrucci L, Bartali B, Urpí-Sarda M, Zamora-Ros R, Sun K, Cherubini A, Bandinelli S, Andres-Lacueva C. Resveratrol levels and all-cause mortality in older community-dwelling adults. JAMA internal medicine . 2014 Jul 1;174(7):1077-84.
• Grodstein F, Kang JH, Glynn RJ, Cook NR, Gaziano JM. A randomized trial of beta carotene supplementation and cognitive function in men: the Physicians’ Health Study II. Archives of internal medicine . 2007 Nov 12;167(20):2184-90.
• USDA Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) of Selected Foods, Release 2 (2010).  http://www.orac-info-portal.de/download/ORAC_R2.pdf Accessed 7/1/2019.
• Lee IM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, Gordon D, Ridker PM, Manson JE, Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: the Women’s Health Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA . 2005 Jul 6;294(1):56-65.
• Lonn E, Bosch J, Yusuf S, Sheridan P, Pogue J, Arnold JM, Ross C, Arnold A, Sleight P, Probstfield J, Dagenais GR. Effects of long-term vitamin E supplementation on cardiovascular events and cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA . 2005 Mar;293(11):1338-47.
• GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators. Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. The Lancet . 1999 Aug 7;354(9177):447-55.
• Milman U, Blum S, Shapira C, Aronson D, Miller-Lotan R, Anbinder Y, Alshiek J, Bennett L, Kostenko M, Landau M, Keidar S. Vitamin E supplementation reduces cardiovascular events in a subgroup of middle-aged individuals with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and the haptoglobin 2-2 genotype: a prospective double-blinded clinical trial. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology . 2008 Feb 1;28(2):341-7.
• Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Manson JE, Stampfer M, Rosner B, Cook NR, Belanger C, LaMotte F, Gaziano JM, Ridker PM, Willett W. Lack of effect of long-term supplementation with beta carotene on the incidence of malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine . 1996 May 2;334(18):1145-9.
• Hercberg S, Galan P, Preziosi P, Bertrais S, Mennen L, Malvy D, Roussel AM, Favier A, Briançon S. The SU. VI. MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Archives of internal medicine . 2004 Nov 22;164(21):2335-42.
• Cook NR, Albert CM, Gaziano JM, Zaharris E, MacFadyen J, Danielson E, Buring JE, Manson JE. A randomized factorial trial of vitamins C and E and beta carotene in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in women: results from the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study. Archives of internal medicine . 2007 Aug 13;167(15):1610-8.
• Marchese ME, Kumar R, Colangelo LA, Avila PC, Jacobs DR, Gross M, Sood A, Liu K, Cook-Mills JM. The vitamin E isoforms α-tocopherol and γ-tocopherol have opposite associations with spirometric parameters: the CARDIA study. Respiratory research . 2014 Dec;15(1):31.
• Berdnikovs S, Abdala-Valencia H, McCary C, Somand M, Cole R, Garcia A, Bryce P, Cook-Mills JM. Isoforms of vitamin E have opposing immunoregulatory functions during inflammation by regulating leukocyte recruitment. The Journal of Immunology . 2009 Apr 1;182(7):4395-405.
• Duffield-Lillico AJ, Reid ME, Turnbull BW, Combs GF, Slate EH, Fischbach LA, Marshall JR, Clark LC. Baseline characteristics and the effect of selenium supplementation on cancer incidence in a randomized clinical trial: a summary report of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers . 2002 Jul 1;11(7):630-9.
• Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Archives of ophthalmology . 2001 Oct;119(10):1417.
• Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E and beta carotene for age-related cataract and vision loss: AREDS report no. 9. Archives of Ophthalmology . 2001 Oct;119(10):1439.
• Richer S, Stiles W, Statkute L, Pulido J, Frankowski J, Rudy D, Pei K, Tsipursky M, Nyland J. Double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of lutein and antioxidant supplementation in the intervention of atrophic age-related macular degeneration: the Veterans LAST study (Lutein Antioxidant Supplementation Trial). Optometry-Journal of the American Optometric Association . 2004 Apr 1;75(4):216-29.
• Bartlett HE, Eperjesi F. Effect of lutein and antioxidant dietary supplementation on contrast sensitivity in age-related macular disease: a randomized controlled trial. European journal of clinical nutrition . 2007 Sep;61(9):1121.
• Chew EY, Clemons TE, SanGiovanni JP, Danis RP, Ferris FL, Elman MJ, Antoszyk AN, Ruby AJ, Orth D, Bressler SB, Fish GE. Secondary analyses of the effects of lutein/zeaxanthin on age-related macular degeneration progression: AREDS2 report No. 3. JAMA ophthalmology . 2014 Feb 1;132(2):142-9.
• Evans JR, Lawrenson JG. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age‐related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2017(7).
• Christen WG, Glynn RJ, Gaziano JM, Darke AK, Crowley JJ, Goodman PJ, Lippman SM, Lad TE, Bearden JD, Goodman GE, Minasian LM. Age-related cataract in men in the selenium and vitamin e cancer prevention trial eye endpoints study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA ophthalmology . 2015 Jan 1;133(1):17-24.
• Kryscio RJ, Abner EL, Caban-Holt A, Lovell M, Goodman P, Darke AK, Yee M, Crowley J, Schmitt FA. Association of antioxidant supplement use and dementia in the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease by vitamin E and selenium trial (PREADViSE). JAMA neurology . 2017 May 1;74(5):567-73.
• Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA . 2007 Feb 28;297(8):842-57.
• Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane database of systematic reviews . 2012(3).
• Albanes D, Heinonen OP, Taylor PR, Virtamo J, Edwards BK, Rautalahti M, Hartman AM, Palmgren J, Freedman LS, Haapakoski J, Barrett MJ. α-Tocopherol and β-carotene supplements and lung cancer incidence in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: effects of base-line characteristics and study compliance. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute . 1996 Nov 6;88(21):1560-70.
• Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, Balmes J, Cullen MR, Glass A, Keogh JP, Meyskens Jr FL, Valanis B, Williams Jr JH, Barnhart S. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. New England journal of medicine . 1996 May 2;334(18):1150-5.
• Hercberg S, Ezzedine K, Guinot C, Preziosi P, Galan P, Bertrais S, Estaquio C, Briançon S, Favier A, Latreille J, Malvy D. Antioxidant supplementation increases the risk of skin cancers in women but not in men. The Journal of nutrition . 2007 Sep 1;137(9):2098-105.
• Klein EA, Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Crowley JJ, Lucia MS, Goodman PJ, Minasian LM, Ford LG, Parnes HL, Gaziano JM, Karp DD. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). JAMA . 2011 Oct 12;306(14):1549-56.
• Joshipura KJ, Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Speizer FE, Colditz G, Ascherio A, Rosner B, Spiegelman D, Willett WC. The effect of fruit and vegetable intake on risk for coronary heart disease. Annals of internal medicine . 2001 Jun 19;134(12):1106-14.
• Bhupathiraju SN, Wedick NM, Pan A, Manson JE, Rexrode KM, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Hu FB. Quantity and variety in fruit and vegetable intake and risk of coronary heart disease. The American journal of clinical nutrition . 2013 Oct 2;98(6):1514-23.
• Aune D, Giovannucci E, Boffetta P, Fadnes LT, Keum N, Norat T, Greenwood DC, Riboli E, Vatten LJ, Tonstad S. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality—a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. International journal of epidemiology . 2017 Jun 1;46(3):1029-56.
• Miller V, Mente A, Dehghan M, Rangarajan S, Zhang X, Swaminathan S, Dagenais G, Gupta R, Mohan V, Lear S, Bangdiwala SI. Fruit, vegetable, and legume intake, and cardiovascular disease and deaths in 18 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study. The Lancet . 2017 Nov 4;390(10107):2037-49.

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Guidelines and Guidance Library
• Core Practices
• Isolation Precautions Guideline
• Disinfection and Sterilization Guideline
• Environmental Infection Control Guidelines
• Hand Hygiene Guidelines
• Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDRO) Management Guidelines
• Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI) Prevention Guideline
• Tools and resources
• Evaluating Environmental Cleaning

CDC's Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings

At a glance.

Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Healthcare

Introduction

Adherence to infection prevention and control practices is essential to providing safe and high quality patient care across all settings where healthcare is delivered

This document concisely describes a core set of infection prevention and control practices that are required in all healthcare settings, regardless of the type of healthcare provided. The practices were selected from among existing CDC recommendations and are the subset that represent fundamental standards of care that are not expected to change based on emerging evidence or to be regularly altered by changes in technology or practices, and are applicable across the continuum of healthcare settings. The practices outlined in this document are intended to serve as a standard reference and reduce the need to repeatedly evaluate practices that are considered basic and accepted as standards of medical care. Readers should consult the full texts of CDC healthcare infection control guidelines for background, rationale, and related infection prevention recommendations for more comprehensive information.

The core practices in this document should be implemented in all settings where healthcare is delivered. These venues include both inpatient settings (e.g., acute, long-term care) and outpatient settings (e.g., clinics, urgent care, ambulatory surgical centers, imaging centers, dialysis centers, physical therapy and rehabilitation centers, alternative medicine clinics). In addition, these practices apply to healthcare delivered in settings other than traditional healthcare facilities, such as homes, assisted living communities, pharmacies, and health fairs.

Healthcare personnel (HCP) referred to in this document include all paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials, including body substances, contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment; contaminated environmental surfaces; or contaminated air.

CDC healthcare infection control guidelines 1-17 were reviewed, and recommendations included in more than one guideline were grouped into core infection prevention practice domains (e.g., education and training of HCP on infection prevention, injection and medication safety). Additional CDC materials aimed at providing general infection prevention guidance outside of the acute care setting 18-20 were also reviewed. HICPAC formed a workgroup led by HICPAC members and including representatives of professional organizations (see Contributors in archives for full list). The workgroup reviewed and discussed all of the practices, further refined the selection and description of the core practices and presented drafts to HICPAC at public meeting and recommendations were approved by the full Committee in July 2014. In October 2022, the Core Practices were reviewed and updated by subject matter experts within the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at CDC. The addition of new practices followed the same methodology employed by the Core Practices Workgroup but also included review of pathogen-specific guidance documents 21-22 that were created or updated after July 2014. These additions were presented to HICPAC at the November 3, 2022 meeting. Future updates to the Core Practices will be guided by the publication of new or updated CDC infection prevention and control guidelines.

Core Practices Table

Infection control.

CDC provides information on infection control and clinical safety to help reduce the risk of infections among healthcare workers, patients, and visitors.

For Everyone

Health care providers, public health.

Microplastics are in human testicles. It’s still not clear how they got there.

People eat, drink, and breathe in tiny pieces of plastics — but what they do inside the body is still unknown..

No human organ is safe from microplastic contamination, it seems — not even the testicles. 

Researchers at the University of Mexico recently tested 70 samples of testicular tissue — 47 from dogs and 23 from humans — and found microplastics in every single one. The attention-grabbing study, published last week in the journal Toxicological Sciences , highlights microplastics’ “pervasive presence” in male reproductive systems, and their potential consequences on male fertility. 

The study isn’t the first to identify microplastics in the human male reproductive system; that came last year, when a small-scale analysis identified microplastics in 6 out of 6 testes and 30 out of 30 semen samples. The new paper built on that research by examining many more testes and finding more than 20 times as much microplastic in human samples as the previous study. The most dominant polymer found in the samples was polyethylene, which is the most commonly produced plastic globally . 

The findings add to a growing list of studies finding microplastics throughout the human body, including in livers , lungs , carotid arteries, breast milk , and placentas , the organs that form to provide nutrients to growing fetuses. Microplastics are particles less than 5 millimeters in diameter — about the width of a paperclip — and they tend to slough off of larger plastic items as they break down.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one .

To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist. Here's How

So how do the microplastics get into people’s bodies? The main pathways are through food, beverages , and air. Seafood is a particularly significant source — perhaps because so much plastic pollution winds up in the ocean , where it breaks down and can be mistaken by fish for food . The particles have also been found in dairy milk and other animal products, as well as tap and bottled water , salt, honey, and foods packaged in plastic. Many studies have documented microplastics in dust samples and ambient air, especially indoors. Synthetic clothing, furniture upholstery, and other textiles release microplastics all the time, and one 2022 study estimated that people may inhale more than 48,000 microplastic particles per day.

The mechanism by which microplastics migrate from the lungs and stomach to other parts of the body is not fully understood, but microplastics have been shown to be absorbed into the human bloodstream .

Xiaozhong Yu, an environmental health professor at the University of New Mexico and a co-author of the new study, said he hadn’t expected to see so much microplastic in testicular tissue because of a cell structure called the “blood-testis barrier,” which is supposed to prevent toxic materials from getting into and damaging the testes. 

“After we received the dog results I was so surprised,” Yu told Grist. And he was even more taken aback by the human samples, which had on average three times more microplastic contamination: 328 micrograms per gram, versus 123 in dogs. The most contaminated sample of human testicular tissue contained 696 micrograms of plastic per gram. In a testicle that weighs 20 grams (0.7 ounces), that would translate to nearly 14,000 micrograms of plastic per testicle — about the weight of six 6-inch human hairs.

Yu said microplastics may be hitching a ride through the body via blood vessels and then breaking through the blood-testis barrier, though more research is needed to understand how this is happening.

More research is also needed to understand the exact effects of microplastics on reproductive health, although many scientists agree they’re probably bad news. Some 16,000 chemicals are used to make consumer plastic products, and many of them are endocrine disruptors, meaning they mimic or disrupt the body’s natural hormones. In the canine samples Yu tested, certain types of microplastic were associated with smaller testes and lower sperm count. (The human sperm count couldn’t be counted because the testicles had been preserved in a formaldehyde solution.) 

Some experts suspect that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are contributing to a globally observed decline in sperm count over the past several decades. According to an analysis published last year , human sperm count fell “appreciably” between 1973 and 2018, with the greatest declines in the years since 2000.

Meanwhile, lab studies have already established that microplastics can damage human cells at levels that reflect what people might be exposed to by ingesting contaminated food and water. Last year, a systematic review commissioned by the California Legislature concluded that microplastics are a “suspected” hazard to humans’ digestive and reproductive systems, and that they may contribute to cancer and respiratory problems.

One of the researchers’ interesting findings was that there was significant variability in the microplastics identified across samples. In humans, testes from those older than 55 showed lower concentrations than those from younger people, and canine testes taken from public veterinary clinics showed higher levels of microplastics than those from private clinics. The authors couldn’t explain these observations, but said they highlighted a “complex interplay of environment, dietary, and lifestyle factors in the accumulation of microplastics within biological tissues.” There’s not yet much research yet on how microplastics impact different populations, but experts say that vulnerable populations are more likely to be harmed by the production, use, and disposal of plastics more broadly.

Although microplastics are virtually everywhere, Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, said that it’s possible for people to limit their exposure. Because food and water are two of the main ways microplastics can get into people’s bodies, her tips include opting for nonplastic food and drink containers, not storing food in plastic wrap, and shifting away from highly processed foods, which may have more microplastic contamination than unprocessed ones. She also recommends keeping plastic out of the microwave, and — because microplastics are released from synthetic clothing and can migrate through dust particles — washing your hands before you eat. 

The problem can feel overwhelming, Woodruff said, but consumers shouldn’t be solely responsible for protecting themselves. She called for policymakers and regulatory agencies to limit the growth of the plastics industry so there’s less of the stuff being produced in the first place. 

“It is prudent to act now,” she said, pointing to ongoing negotiations over the United Nations’ global plastics treaty , where some countries are fiercely advocating for a cap on plastic production. “We don’t need more plastics in our lives.”

A message from   

All donations DOUBLED!

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.  

Northern Michiganders are getting off propane — and on to natural gas

Researchers explore mining seawater for critical metals, the ‘doomsday glacier’ is melting faster than scientists thought, this enzyme is responsible for life on earth. it’s a hot mess., a trillion cicadas will emerge in the next few weeks. this hasn’t happened since 1803., puerto rico’s rooftop solar boom is at risk, advocates warn, as new york’s offshore wind work begins, an environmental justice community awaits the benefits, what’s the difference between indigenous nations co-managing or co-stewarding their land a lot., a pot of unspent federal money could have prevented jackson’s water crisis, modal gallery.