project report in research methodology

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

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

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

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Review

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

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

Research Paper

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

Technical Report

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

Progress Report

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

Feasibility Report

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

Field Report

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

Experimental Report

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

Case Study Report

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

Literature Review Report

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

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

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

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

Introduction:

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

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

Methodology:

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

Conclusion:

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

Limitations:

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

Implications:

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

References:

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

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

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

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

How to write Research Report

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

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

Purpose of Research Report

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

Some common purposes of a research report include:

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

When to Write Research Report

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of Research Report

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

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

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

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

Limitations of Research Report

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

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Approach – Types Methods and Examples

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

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

Here's What You Need to Understand About Research Methodology

Table of Contents

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

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

What is the definition of a research methodology?

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

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

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

The need for a good research methodology

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

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

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

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

What is the basic structure of a research methodology?

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

1. Your research procedure

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

2. Provide the rationality behind your chosen approach

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

3. Explain your mechanism

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

4. Significance of outcomes

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

5. Reader’s advice

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

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

6. Explain your sample space

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

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

7. Challenges and limitations

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

The importance of a good research methodology

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

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

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

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

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

Instruments you could use while writing a good research methodology

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

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

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

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

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

c. Sample Groups

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

d. Observations

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

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

Types of research methodology

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

1. Qualitative research methodology

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

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

2. Quantitative research methodology

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

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

3. Amalgam methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Research Methodology

1. how to write a research methodology.

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

2. What are the types of research methodology?

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

• Observation
• Experimental
• Derivational

3. What is the true meaning of research methodology?

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

4. Where lies the importance of research methodology?

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Using AI for research: A beginner’s guide

Still have questions? Leave a comment

Add Comment

Checklist: Dissertation Proposal

Enter your email id to get the downloadable right in your inbox!

Examples: Edited Papers

Need editing and proofreading services, research methodology guide: writing tips, types, & examples.

• Tags: Academic Research , Research

No dissertation or research paper is complete without the research methodology section. Since this is the chapter where you explain how you carried out your research, this is where all the meat is! Here’s where you clearly lay out the steps you have taken to test your hypothesis or research problem.

Through this blog, we’ll unravel the complexities and meaning of research methodology in academic writing , from its fundamental principles and ethics to the diverse types of research methodology in use today. Alongside offering research methodology examples, we aim to guide you on how to write research methodology, ensuring your research endeavors are both impactful and impeccably grounded!

Ensure your research methodology is foolproof. Learn more

Let’s first take a closer look at a simple research methodology definition:

Defining what is research methodology

Research methodology is the set of procedures and techniques used to collect, analyze, and interpret data to understand and solve a research problem. Methodology in research not only includes the design and methods but also the basic principles that guide the choice of specific methods.

Grasping the concept of methodology in research is essential for students and scholars, as it demonstrates the thorough and structured method used to explore a hypothesis or research question. Understanding the definition of methodology in research aids in identifying the methods used to collect data. Be it through any type of research method approach, ensuring adherence to the proper research paper format is crucial.

Now let’s explore some research methodology types:

Types of research methodology

1. qualitative research methodology.

Qualitative research methodology is aimed at understanding concepts, thoughts, or experiences. This approach is descriptive and is often utilized to gather in-depth insights into people’s attitudes, behaviors, or cultures. Qualitative research methodology involves methods like interviews, focus groups, and observation. The strength of this methodology lies in its ability to provide contextual richness.

2. Quantitative research methodology

Quantitative research methodology, on the other hand, is focused on quantifying the problem by generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics. It uses measurable data to formulate facts and uncover patterns in research. Quantitative research methodology typically involves surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis. This methodology is appreciated for its ability to produce objective results that are generalizable to a larger population.

3. Mixed-Methods research methodology

Mixed-methods research combines both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem. This approach leverages the strengths of both methodologies to provide a deeper insight into the research question of a research paper .

Research methodology vs. research methods

The research methodology or design is the overall strategy and rationale that you used to carry out the research. Whereas, research methods are the specific tools and processes you use to gather and understand the data you need to test your hypothesis.

Research methodology examples and application

To further understand research methodology, let’s explore some examples of research methodology:

a. Qualitative research methodology example: A study exploring the impact of author branding on author popularity might utilize in-depth interviews to gather personal experiences and perspectives.

b. Quantitative research methodology example: A research project investigating the effects of a book promotion technique on book sales could employ a statistical analysis of profit margins and sales before and after the implementation of the method.

c. Mixed-Methods research methodology example: A study examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance might combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches. It could include surveys to quantitatively assess the frequency of social media usage and its correlation with grades, alongside focus groups or interviews to qualitatively explore students’ perceptions and experiences regarding how social media affects their study habits and academic engagement.

These examples highlight the meaning of methodology in research and how it guides the research process, from data collection to analysis, ensuring the study’s objectives are met efficiently.

Importance of methodology in research papers

When it comes to writing your study, the methodology in research papers or a dissertation plays a pivotal role. A well-crafted methodology section of a research paper or thesis not only enhances the credibility of your research but also provides a roadmap for others to replicate or build upon your work.

How to structure the research methods chapter

Wondering how to write the research methodology section? Follow these steps to create a strong methods chapter:

Step 1: Explain your research methodology

At the start of a research paper , you would have provided the background of your research and stated your hypothesis or research problem. In this section, you will elaborate on your research strategy. 

Begin by restating your research question and proceed to explain what type of research you opted for to test it. Depending on your research, here are some questions you can consider: 

a. Did you use qualitative or quantitative data to test the hypothesis? 

b. Did you perform an experiment where you collected data or are you writing a dissertation that is descriptive/theoretical without data collection? 

c. Did you use primary data that you collected or analyze secondary research data or existing data as part of your study? 

These questions will help you establish the rationale for your study on a broader level, which you will follow by elaborating on the specific methods you used to collect and understand your data. 

Step 2: Explain the methods you used to test your hypothesis 

Now that you have told your reader what type of research you’ve undertaken for the dissertation, it’s time to dig into specifics. State what specific methods you used and explain the conditions and variables involved. Explain what the theoretical framework behind the method was, what samples you used for testing it, and what tools and materials you used to collect the data. 

Step 3: Explain how you analyzed the results

Once you have explained the data collection process, explain how you analyzed and studied the data. Here, your focus is simply to explain the methods of analysis rather than the results of the study. 

Here are some questions you can answer at this stage: 

a. What tools or software did you use to analyze your results? 

b. What parameters or variables did you consider while understanding and studying the data you’ve collected? 

c. Was your analysis based on a theoretical framework? 

Your mode of analysis will change depending on whether you used a quantitative or qualitative research methodology in your study. If you’re working within the hard sciences or physical sciences, you are likely to use a quantitative research methodology (relying on numbers and hard data). If you’re doing a qualitative study, in the social sciences or humanities, your analysis may rely on understanding language and socio-political contexts around your topic. This is why it’s important to establish what kind of study you’re undertaking at the onset. 

Step 4: Defend your choice of methodology 

Now that you have gone through your research process in detail, you’ll also have to make a case for it. Justify your choice of methodology and methods, explaining why it is the best choice for your research question. This is especially important if you have chosen an unconventional approach or you’ve simply chosen to study an existing research problem from a different perspective. Compare it with other methodologies, especially ones attempted by previous researchers, and discuss what contributions using your methodology makes.  

Step 5: Discuss the obstacles you encountered and how you overcame them

No matter how thorough a methodology is, it doesn’t come without its hurdles. This is a natural part of scientific research that is important to document so that your peers and future researchers are aware of it. Writing in a research paper about this aspect of your research process also tells your evaluator that you have actively worked to overcome the pitfalls that came your way and you have refined the research process. 

Tips to write an effective methodology chapter

1. Remember who you are writing for. Keeping sight of the reader/evaluator will help you know what to elaborate on and what information they are already likely to have. You’re condensing months’ work of research in just a few pages, so you should omit basic definitions and information about general phenomena people already know.

2. Do not give an overly elaborate explanation of every single condition in your study. 

3. Skip details and findings irrelevant to the results.

4. Cite references that back your claim and choice of methodology. 

5. Consistently emphasize the relationship between your research question and the methodology you adopted to study it. 

To sum it up, what is methodology in research? It’s the blueprint of your research, essential for ensuring that your study is systematic, rigorous, and credible. Whether your focus is on qualitative research methodology, quantitative research methodology, or a combination of both, understanding and clearly defining your methodology is key to the success of your research.

Once you write the research methodology and complete writing the entire research paper, the next step is to edit your paper. As experts in research paper editing and proofreading services , we’d love to help you perfect your paper!

Here are some other articles that you might find useful: 

• Essential Research Tips for Essay Writing
• How to Write a Lab Report: Examples from Academic Editors
• The Essential Types of Editing Every Writer Needs to Know
• Editing and Proofreading Academic Papers: A Short Guide
• The Top 10 Editing and Proofreading Services of 2023

Frequently Asked Questions

What does research methodology mean, what types of research methodologies are there, what is qualitative research methodology, how to determine sample size in research methodology, what is action research methodology.

Found this article helpful?

One comment on “ Research Methodology Guide: Writing Tips, Types, & Examples ”

This is very simplified and direct. Very helpful to understand the research methodology section of a dissertation

Leave a Comment: Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your vs. You’re: When to Use Your and You’re

Your organization needs a technical editor: here’s why, your guide to the best ebook readers in 2024, writing for the web: 7 expert tips for web content writing.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get carefully curated resources about writing, editing, and publishing in the comfort of your inbox.

How to Copyright Your Book?

If you’ve thought about copyrighting your book, you’re on the right path.

© 2024 All rights reserved

• Terms of service
• Privacy policy
• Self Publishing Guide
• Pre-Publishing Steps
• Fiction Writing Tips
• Traditional Publishing
• Additional Resources
• Dissertation Writing Guide
• Essay Writing Guide
• Academic Writing and Publishing
• Citation and Referencing
• Partner with us
• Annual report
• Website content
• Marketing material
• Job Applicant
• Cover letter
• Resource Center
• Case studies

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

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

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

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

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

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

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

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

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

Why is the methodology chapter important?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

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

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

Section 1 – Introduction

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

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

Section 2 – The Methodology

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

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

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

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

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

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

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

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

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

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

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

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

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

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

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

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

Methodology Chapter Example

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

Wrapping Up

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

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

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

55 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

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

Highly clear and useful.

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

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

Thanks it was helpful

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

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

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

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

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

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

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

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

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

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

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

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

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

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

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

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

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

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

its so good in deed

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

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

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

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

highly appreciate your effort.

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

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

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

Thank you very much for this informative and synthesised version.

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Project Report Writing and Presentations

• First Online: 20 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Habeeb Adewale Ajimotokan 2  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES))

1048 Accesses

The objectives of this chapter are to

Specify and discuss the basic chapter titles and sub-titles in a research project report;

Prepare a research project report based on the basic format;

Specify and explain the basic methods of writing bibliography, citing and listing references;

Discuss research presentations;

Describe plagiarism and citation; and

Discuss citation and its management.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Thiel, D. V. (2014). Research methods for engineers . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lues, L., & Lategan, L. O. K. (2006). RE: Search ABC (1st ed.). Sun Press.

Google Scholar  

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. C., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research . University of Chicago Press.

Snieder, R., & Lamer, K. (2009). The art of being a scientist: A guide for graduate students and their mentors . University Printing House, University of Cambridge.

Alley, M. (2003). The craft of scientific presentations: Critical steps to succeed and critical errors to avoid . Springer-Verlag.

Hofmann, A. H. (2009). Scientific writing and communications: Papers, proposals and presentations . Oxford University Press.

University of Oxford. (2019). Plagiarism. Retrieved from https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism?wssl=1

Neville, C. (2007). The complete guide to referencing and avoiding plagiarism . Open University Press.

Walliman, N. (2011). Research methods: The basics . Routledge—Taylor and Francis Group.

Woods, G. (2002). Research papers for dummies . Hungry Minds.

Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science (5th ed.). Open University Press.

Mendeley. (2018). Mendeley. Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeley

Mendeley. (2018). Getting started with Mendeley desktop . Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/guides/desktop

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Ajimotokan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ajimotokan, H.A. (2023). Project Report Writing and Presentations. In: Research Techniques. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13109-7_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13109-7_5

Published : 20 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-13108-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-13109-7

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• RMIT Australia
• RMIT Europe
• RMIT Vietnam
• RMIT Global
• RMIT Online
• Alumni & Giving

• What will I do?
• What will I need?
• Who will help me?
• About the institution
• New to university?
• Studying efficiently
• Time management
• Mind mapping
• Note-taking
• Reading skills
• Argument analysis
• Preparing for assessment
• Critical thinking and argument analysis
• Online learning skills
• Starting my first assignment
• Researching your assignment
• What is referencing?
• Understanding citations
• When referencing isn't needed
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Synthesising
• Integrating ideas with reporting words
• Referencing with Easy Cite
• Getting help with referencing
• Acting with academic integrity
• Artificial intelligence tools
• Understanding your audience
• Writing for coursework
• Literature review
• Academic style
• Writing for the workplace
• Spelling tips
• Writing paragraphs
• Writing sentences
• Academic word lists
• Annotated bibliographies
• Artist statement
• Case studies
• Creating effective poster presentations
• Essays, Reports, Reflective Writing
• Law assessments
• Oral presentations
• Reflective writing
• Art and design
• Critical thinking
• Maths and statistics
• Sustainability
• Educators' guide
• Learning Lab content in context
• Latest updates
• Students Alumni & Giving Staff Library

Learning Lab

Getting started at uni, study skills, referencing.

• When referencing isn't needed
• Integrating ideas

Writing and assessments

• Critical reading
• Poster presentations
• Postgraduate report writing

Subject areas

For educators.

• Educators' guide
• Methodology section in a report

Method/Methodology

The method section of a report details how the research was conducted, the research methods used and the reasons for choosing those methods. It should outline:

• the participants and research methods used, e.g. surveys/questionnaire, interviews
• refer to other relevant studies.

The methodology is a step-by-step explanation of the research process. It should be factual and is mainly written in the past tense.

Sample Methodology

The research used a quantitative methodology based on the approach advocated by Williams (2009). This study was conducted by questionnaire and investigated university teaching staff attitudes to the use of mobile phones in tutorials (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire used Likert scales to assess social attitudes (Jones 2007) to student mobile phone use and provided open-ended responses for additional comments. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 412 questionnaires were distributed online to randomly selected staff from each of the three colleges within the university. The completed questionnaires were returned by email.

• 'Describe' is short for: describing how the research was done.
• 'Refers' is short for: refers to relevant reading/literature.

[Describe: The research used a quantitative methodology based on the approach advocated by Williams (2009).] [Refer: This study was conducted by questionnaire and investigated university teaching staff attitudes to the use of mobile phones in tutorials (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire used Likert scales to assess social attitudes (Jones 2007) to student mobile phone use and provided open-ended responses for additional comments.] [Describes: The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 412 questionnaires were distributed online to randomly selected staff from each of the three colleges within the university. The completed questionnaires were returned by email.]

• Overall structure of a report
• Example of a report
• Report checklist
• Writing a business research report

Still can't find what you need?

The RMIT University Library provides study support , one-on-one consultations and peer mentoring to RMIT students.

• Facebook (opens in a new window)
• Twitter (opens in a new window)
• Instagram (opens in a new window)
• Linkedin (opens in a new window)
• YouTube (opens in a new window)
• Weibo (opens in a new window)
• Copyright © 2024 RMIT University |
• Accessibility |
• Learning Lab feedback |
• Complaints |
• ABN 49 781 030 034 |
• CRICOS provider number: 00122A |
• RTO Code: 3046 |
• Open Universities Australia

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

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

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

What is research methodology ?

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

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

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

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

Types of research methodology.

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

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

What are the types of sampling designs in research methodology?

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

• Probability sampling

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

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

What are data collection methods?

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

Qualitative research 5

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

Quantitative research 6

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

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

What are data analysis methods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to choose a research methodology?

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

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

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

How to write a research methodology .

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

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

Streamline Your Research Paper Writing Process with Paperpal  

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What are the key components of research methodology?

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

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

Q2. Why is ethical consideration important in research methodology?

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

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

Q3. What is the difference between methodology and method?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Dangling Modifiers and How to Avoid Them in Your Writing 
• Research Outlines: How to Write An Introduction Section in Minutes with Paperpal Copilot
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively
• What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

Language and Grammar Rules for Academic Writing

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

• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2020

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

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

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

41k Accesses

60 Citations

60 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

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

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

What is a methodological study?

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

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

When should we conduct a methodological study?

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

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

How often are methodological studies conducted?

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

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

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

Where can we find methodological studies?

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

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

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

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

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

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

Q: How many databases should I search?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

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

Comparing two groups

Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier

Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

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

Q: What should I call my study?

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

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

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

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

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

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

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

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

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A proposed framework

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

What is the aim?

Methodological studies that investigate bias

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

Methodological studies that investigate quality (or completeness) of reporting

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

Methodological studies that investigate the consistency of reporting

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

Methodological studies that investigate factors associated with reporting

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

Methodological studies that investigate methods

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

Methodological studies that summarize other methodological studies

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

Methodological studies that investigate nomenclature and terminology

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

Other types of methodological studies

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

What is the design?

Methodological studies that are descriptive

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

Methodological studies that are analytical

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

What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological studies that include the target population

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

Methodological studies that include a sample of the target population

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

What is the unit of analysis?

Methodological studies with a research report as the unit of analysis

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

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

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

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Abbreviations

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Studies Within a Review

Studies Within a Trial

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daeria O. Lawson & Lehana Thabane

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

Lawrence Mbuagbaw & Lehana Thabane

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

Lawrence Mbuagbaw

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

Livia Puljak

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

David B. Allison

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

Lehana Thabane

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Mbuagbaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2020

Accepted : 27 August 2020

Published : 07 September 2020

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Filter by Keywords

Project Management

How to write a project report (with steps & templates).

August 16, 2024

Start using ClickUp today

• Manage all your work in one place
• Collaborate with your team
• Use ClickUp for FREE—forever

Juggling all the different components of a project can be quite a challenge. If that weren’t enough, you also have to write a project status report to update key stakeholders on the project’s progress. The struggle is real.

So where do you start? Fortunately, we have the answer. And that’s precisely why we put together this guide—to walk you through the process so you have a clear path from start to finish.

Learn more about creating project reports and different types of project status reports. Plus, you’ll walk away with five free project report templates, carefully crafted to streamline your project management workflow, save you time, and impress your stakeholders. 🤩

What is a Project Report?

How to write a project report, 1. project status report, 2. project progress report, 3. project cost benefit analysis report, 4. project time tracking report, 5. project resource report, 6. project risk report, 7. project variance report, 8. project performance report, 9. project completion report, 10. project management report, why is project reporting important, 1. final project report template, 2. project status report template, 3. digital marketing report template, 4. employee daily activity report template, 5. campaign report template, create professional project reports in less time with clickup.

A project report is a document offering a comprehensive overview of a project’s objectives, progress, team performance, and milestone accomplishments. It also gives an account of the challenges faced during a project’s execution , solutions devised to tackle them, and the lessons learned during the process. 

Project managers create these reports to communicate with other project stakeholders—including team members, sponsors, clients, and other interested parties—to ensure everyone’s on the same page. The document also serves as a foundation for further evaluation and analysis to ensure the project says on track and achieves its goals. 🎯

Creating a project report doesn’t have to be a daunting task. Follow these three simple steps to create your first project report with ease.

Understand the purpose of the report

Before you create a project report, you need to understand the purpose of the report (the “why”) and know your target audience (the “who”). This will guide the content, structure, and tone of your project report.

Gather and organize the relevant information

At this point, you need to gather project information relevant to your project report. Make sure your data is accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. Organize the gathered information in a logical and structured manner.

• Executive summary : As its name suggests, this project summary gives readers a quick overview of the whole report. It’s a snapshot that highlights the most important parts of the project. While it’s placed at the start of the report, it’s often written last. It covers the project’s objectives, methodology, major outcomes, and conclusions. 
• Introduction: This sets the context and expectations of the entire report. It includes the project’s purpose and scope, project schedule, the problems it aims to address, and the methodologies to get there. It also outlines the structure and organization of the rest of the report. 
• Body: Typically, this is the longest part of project management reports because it dives into in-depth details, including project progress, data collection, analysis reports, constraints, and limitations. Remember that whatever you include here should reflect the purpose of your project report and the preferences of your target audience. 
• Conclusions & Recommendations: Based on your findings and analysis, identify opportunities for improvement, suggest strategies for addressing them, or propose avenues for future research. 

Format and proofread the report

Ensure that your project report follows a consistent formatting style—headings, subheadings, and bullet points will make it easier to read. In addition, scan your report for spelling or grammar errors and typos.

Types of Project Reports

Project reports come in diverse formats, with each serving different use cases. Here are nine of the most commonly used types of project reports.

A project status report is a document that gives a snapshot of where your project stands at any given moment. It’s like answering the question, “How’s the project doing?”

But instead of just saying “The project is fine,” you actually dive into the project goals, tasks completed, milestones achieved, challenges faced, lessons learned, potential roadblocks, and next steps. 

Whether it’s a weekly project status report or a monthly status report, this documentation eliminates the need for status meetings while giving stakeholders the most recent status of the project.

A project progress report is slightly similar to a status update report, as they both discuss task progress. However, the progress report is more quantitative and zooms in on individual tasks and project milestones . 

It’s like taking a magnifying glass and examining the progress of each task, one by one. For example, it could include in-depth information on the percentage of completion and current status of each task (completed, on track, delayed, etc.). 

The cost-benefit analysis report is usually prepared before a project is put into motion. Of the various project reports, this one aims to answer a simple question: “Is it worth pursuing this project?”

To answer this question, the report first assesses all project costs like operational expenses, materials, salaries, equipment, and potential risks. 

It then considers the projected benefits, such as increased profit margins, cost savings, improved efficiency, or happier customers. Finally, the report compares the costs to the benefits to determine if it’s time to move forward or explore other options.

A project time-tracking report is a document that records and summarizes time spent on project activities. Each project team member contributes to writing this report—they track and record the amount of time they’ve spent on tasks and submit it to the project manager. ⏰

Thankfully, the rise of project management tools has eliminated the need for paper-based time-tracking submissions. They make it easy for team members to submit accurate and detailed time reports to the project manager—while reducing the administrative burden of manual report compilation. 

Project managers can see how time is spent and the overall productivity of team members. As a result, they’re able to make informed decisions, such as redistributing workload (aka workload management ), reassigning tasks, and providing feedback and support to team members. 

A project resource dashboard offers a bird’s-eye view of how resources (e.g., labor, equipment, materials, budget, etc.) are allocated in a project. Think of it as a comprehensive resource inventory, listing every project task, the responsible party, and the resources being used. 

Project reports like this help project managers keep track of resource availability, identify potential resource constraints or shortages, and make informed decisions about resource allocation and optimization.

A project risk report offers a comprehensive analysis of potential risks, their likelihood of occurrence, their potential impact on the project, and recommended mitigation strategies. 

Rather than waiting for future events to derail the project, project reports like this one allow project managers to take a more proactive approach to risk management—thereby boosting the chances of overall project success.

A project variance report reveals the gaps or deviations between project plans and the actual performance or results achieved. It compares various factors—like budget, time, resources, and scope—and their planned values with their actual values, then computes the differences (or variances). 

By analyzing these variances, project managers and stakeholders can discuss the possible reasons behind them, identify areas that need attention, and take corrective actions where necessary.

A project performance report evaluates the overall performance and achievements of a project against predetermined metrics and objectives. It includes information on project deliverables, key performance indicators (KPIs) , and stakeholder satisfaction.

This report helps project managers assess project success, identify areas for improvement, and communicate the project’s performance to stakeholders.

A project completion report marks the end of a project journey. It summarizes the entire project lifecycle, from initiation to closure. This report contains an overview of the project’s objectives, deliverables, milestones, challenges, and recommendations for future projects.

A project management report summarizes a project’s progress, status, and performance for stakeholders. It includes an overview, current status, timeline, budget, risks, resource allocation, key performance indicators (KPIs), and next steps. The report helps ensure transparency, track milestones, address issues, and guide decision-making. It provides a snapshot of where the project stands and what actions are needed to keep it on track.

Writing project reports may initially seem redundant and time-consuming. However, it plays a crucial role in achieving project success. While a few benefits were hinted at earlier, let’s get a better picture of why project reports should not be overlooked.

More clarity

Creating a project report allows you to step back and reflect on the project’s progress. As you record the milestones, successes, and challenges, a wealth of insights begin to unfold—strengths, weaknesses, and areas that need attention.

This holistic view of the project’s health helps you steer it toward the desired outcomes and ensure it stays on track.

Encourages evaluation and analysis

Project reports allow you to evaluate and analyze the different aspects of a project in a systematic way—gathering relevant data, analyzing them, and evaluating their significance. By giving your project a critical analysis, you can uncover valuable insights, identify patterns, draw meaningful conclusions, and take strategic action. 🛠️

Enhances communication and collaboration

Creating a project report challenges you to present the project’s progress and results to stakeholders in a clear and coherent manner. A well-written report promotes project transparency and ensures everyone is on the same page.

It also facilitates collaboration by providing a common reference point for discussions, feedback, and decision-making.

Boosts professionalism and credibility

When you present a comprehensive and well-structured report, it shows that you have conducted thorough research, followed a methodical approach, and can effectively communicate complex information. This, in turn, boosts your reputation, enhances your credibility, and showcases your expertise among peers, colleagues, and potential employers.

Knowledge preservation

A project report serves as a valuable reference for future research or projects. By documenting your process, methodologies, challenges, lessons, and results, you create a resource that can be consulted and built upon by others.

This contributes to the cumulative knowledge in your field and fosters a culture of collaboration and innovation.

Improves Team Alignment

Project reports are instrumental in enhancing team alignment. They provide a clear, concise snapshot of progress, identifying accomplishments, challenges, and next steps. This enables all team members to understand the project’s current status and their respective roles in achieving the overall objectives.

Check out these project report templates for teams:

• Nonprofit Organizations Project Report
• Operations Teams Project Report
• Finance Teams Project Report
• DevOps Teams Project Report
• Agile Teams Project Report
• Sales Teams Project Report

5 Project Report Examples & Templates

Sure, you could write project reports from scratch and spend countless hours formatting and structuring them. But why would you when you can use free project report templates? They provide a structure and format for your report so you can simply plug in your data and customize the design to fit your needs. Not only do project report templates speed up the report creation process, but they also enhance the overall quality of your reports. 

Let’s jump right in to explore our top five project report templates. 📈

A final project report is the perfect finishing touch to conclude a project and highlight its achievements. ClickUp’s Final Project Report Template provides a solid structure to help you put it together with the following key sections:

• Planned vs. Actual: A quantitative breakdown of how the project deviated from the original plan with regard to its start date, completion date, duration, and budget
• Management Effectiveness: A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis evaluating how the project was managed
• Project Learnings : Share the important project lessons learned by the team throughout the lifespan of the project
• Contract Terms Checklist : A simple table listing the various contract terms, whether they were completed, and any remarks you have 
• Overall Performance rating: A 1 out of 5 rating of the different aspects of the project, from planning and execution to leadership and communication

This template is built in ClickUp Docs , which means you have unlimited flexibility for customization—add extra sections and tweak the appearance to suit your taste. And guess what? The table of content updates in real-time as you add, edit, or delete multiple headers.

If you want to wow your team and clients, this project status report template will help you get the job done. 

Writing a project status report is fairly straightforward. But staring at a blank document and worrying about crafting perfectly manicured sentences can make this process last a lot longer than it should. 

Thankfully, ClickUp’s Project Status Report Template is here to save the day! Built inside ClickUp Whiteboards, this template provides a hassle-free method to quickly capture key project details in a visually engaging way.

• General information: Cover general project details (e.g., project name, objectives, project timeline , reporting period, etc.) which you’ll need to fill in only once
• Progress details: Use color-coding to share in-progress, at-risk, delayed, and completed tasks
• Support and resources: List out assets (e.g., labor, money, etc.) needed for a smooth operation 
• Highlights and takeaways: Share key lessons learned and other noteworthy highlights
• What went well/What needs improvement: Use this opportunity to reflect on the project’s progress and share the areas that performed well and what needs attention
• Next steps: Highlight the key action items that need to get done to keep the project on track

Enter the details under each of these sections onto sticky notes, which’ll help you quickly pour down your thoughts without worrying about writing perfect sentences. It’s also very helpful for stakeholders as the information on sticky notes is short and straight to the point. 

This template removes the pressure of creating a status report and saves valuable time—all while keeping key stakeholders informed and up to date.

After running a digital marketing campaign project, you need to gather key metrics from the campaign and present it to key stakeholders for evaluation, performance analysis, and notes for future improvements. 

Sharing this info across multiple digital channels can get overwhelming but there’s no need to worry. ClickUp’s Digital Marketing Report Template has you covered with everything you need. Plus, it’s neatly broken down into the following sections:

• Digital Marketing Performance: This section lets you summarize the overall performance of your campaign by capturing key details like project budget allocations, actual expenses, cost per acquisition, total impressions, and total clicks across multiple campaigns
• Web Analytics Report: This section analyzes website performance during and after the project’s completion. It captures metrics like page views, bounce rate, traffic sources, and overall conversion rate
• Social Media Campaign Performance: This section analyzes social media performance by measuring metrics like impressions, followers, and engagement rate—all in a simple table for each social media platform 

Use this template to present the performance of your digital marketing project in a simple and visually engaging way. This makes it easy to identify trends, analyze the impact of your campaign, and make informed decisions regarding future marketing initiatives.

A key way to stay on track and guarantee overall project success is to engage team members in the process.

The Employee Daily Activity Report Template by ClickUp has a simple tabular layout that makes it easy for team members to record and keep track of: 

• Completed tasks and the time spent on each
• Ongoing tasks and their due dates
• Upcoming tasks and any support they’ll need

This template encourages each team member to get work done and ask for support when needed—while allowing you to keep the project on track by providing support and maximizing team performance.

Remember the Digital Marketing Report Template we looked at earlier? You can choose to further analyze the marketing performance section, with elements from this Campaign Report Template by ClickUp . 

Dive deeper into how each marketing channel contributed to overall ad cost, ad revenue, and ad conversion rate. You can further break down each channel’s performance by analyzing the metrics from each individual campaign on that channel.

There you have it—your secret sauce for creating an effective project report in a fraction of the time. And that’s only scratching the surface … working inside ClickUp unlocks a lot more perks. 

Not only does ClickUp make project reporting easy and quick, but it also gives you access to free project management templates to enhance your workflow. Quickly assign tasks to your team, keep track of progress, discuss updates, and collaborate on documents and whiteboards—all in one place. ✨

Did we mention the integrations? ClickUp plays nicely with other apps, allowing you to seamlessly connect your favorite tools to supercharge your team’s productivity. And let’s not forget about the time you’ll save using ClickUp’s automations—a feature that lets you breeze through repetitive tasks that used to eat up valuable time across project management reports.

Just imagine what you can do with those extra hours—maybe enjoy a cup of coffee or catch up with your team about how best you can support them. Make project reporting a blast with ClickUp and boost your chances of a successful project. 

Get started by signing up for free on ClickUp today … Ready? Set? Report!

Questions? Comments? Visit our Help Center for support.

Receive the latest WriteClick Newsletter updates.

Thanks for subscribing to our blog!

Please enter a valid email

• Free training & 24-hour support
• Serious about security & privacy
• 99.99% uptime the last 12 months

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
• BMC Med Res Methodol

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

Lawrence mbuagbaw.

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

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

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

Daeria O. Lawson

Livia puljak.

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

David B. Allison

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

Lehana Thabane

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

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

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

Associated Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

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

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

What is a methodological study?

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

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

When should we conduct a methodological study?

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

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

How often are methodological studies conducted?

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

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

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

Where can we find methodological studies?

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

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

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

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

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

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

Q: How many databases should I search?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

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

• Comparing two groups
• Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier
• Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

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

Q: What should I call my study?

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

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

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

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

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

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

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

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

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

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

• Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.
• Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].
• Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]
• Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 – 67 ].
• Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].
• Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].
• Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].
• Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A proposed framework

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

• What is the aim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2. What is the design?

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

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

• 3. What is the sampling strategy?

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

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

• 4. What is the unit of analysis?

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

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

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

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

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

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations.

Authors’ contributions

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

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

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

Publisher’s Note

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

Research Methods | Definitions, Types, Examples

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

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

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

Second, decide how you will analyze the data .

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

Table of contents

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

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

Qualitative vs. quantitative data

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

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

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

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

Primary vs. secondary research

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

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

Descriptive vs. experimental data

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Qualitative analysis methods

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

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

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

Quantitative analysis methods

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

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

• During an experiment .
• Using probability sampling methods .

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this article helpful?

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

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

More interesting articles

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

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

How to Write a Research Proposal Paper

Table of Contents

What is a research proposal paper, why write a research proposal paper.

• How to Plan a Research Proposal Paper

Components of a Research Proposal Paper

Research proposal examples, help & additional resources, this resource page will help you:.

• Learn what a research proposal paper is.  
• Understand the importance of writing a research proposal paper. 
• Understand the steps in the planning stages of a research proposal paper.  
• Identify the components of a research proposal paper.  

A research proposal paper:   

• includes sufficient information about a research study that you propose to conduct for your thesis (e.g., in an MT, MA, or Ph.D. program) or that you imagine conducting (e.g., in an MEd program). It should help your readers understand the scope, validity, and significance of your proposed study.  
• may be a stand-alone paper or one part of a larger research project, depending on the nature of your assignment. 
• typically follows the citation format of your field, which at OISE is APA .    

Your instructor will provide you with assignment details that can help you determine how much information to include in your research proposal, so you should carefully check your course outline and assignment instructions.  

Writing a research proposal allows you to  

• develop skills in designing a comprehensive research study; 

learn how to identify a research problem that can contribute to advancing knowledge in your field of interest; 

further develop skills in finding foundational and relevant literature related to your topic; 

critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem;  

see yourself as an active participant in conducting research in your field of study. 

Writing a research proposal paper can help clarify questions you may have before designing your research study. It is helpful to get feedback on your research proposal and edit your work to be able to see what you may need to change in your proposal. The more diverse opinions you receive on your proposal, the better prepared you will be to design a comprehensive research study. 

How to Plan your Research Proposal

Before starting your research proposal, you should clarify your ideas and make a plan. Ask yourself these questions and take notes:  

What do I want to study? 

Why is the topic important? Why is it important to me? 

How is the topic significant within the subject areas covered in my class? 

What problems will it help solve? 

How does it build on research already conducted on the topic? 

What exactly should I plan to do to conduct a study on the topic? 

It may be helpful to write down your answers to these questions and use them to tell a story about your chosen topic to your classmates or instructor. As you tell your story, write down comments or questions from your listeners. This will help you refine your proposal and research questions. 

This is an example of how to start planning and thinking about your research proposal assignment. You will find a student’s notes and ideas about their research proposal topic - "Perspectives on Textual Production, Student Collaboration, and Social Networking Sites”. This example is hyperlinked in the following Resource Page: 

A research proposal paper typically includes: 

• an introduction  
• a theoretical framework 
• a literature review 
• the methodology  
• the implications of the proposed study and conclusion 
• references 

Start your introduction by giving the reader an overview of your study. Include:  

• the research context (in what educational settings do you plan to conduct this study?) 
• the research problem, purpose (What do you want to achieve by conducting this study?) 
• a brief overview of the literature on your topic and the gap your study hopes to fill 
•  research questions and sub-questions 
• a brief mention of your research method (How do you plan to collect and analyze your data?) 
• your personal interest in the topic. 

 Conclude your introduction by giving your reader a roadmap of your proposal. 

 To learn more about paper introductions, check How to write Introductions .  

A theoretical framework refers to the theories that you will use to interpret both your own data and the literature that has come before. Think about theories as lenses that help you look at your data from different perspectives, beyond just your own personal perspective. Think about the theories that you have come across in your courses or readings that could apply to your research topic. When writing the theoretical framework, include 

• A description of where the theories come from (original thinkers), their key components, and how they have developed over time. 
• How you plan to use the theories in your study / how they apply to your topic. 

The literature review section should help you identify topics or issues that will help contextualize what the research has/hasn’t found and discussed on the topic so far and convince your reader that your proposed study is important. This is where you can go into more detail on the gap that your study hopes to fill. Ultimately, a good literature review helps your reader learn more about the topic that you have chosen to study and what still needs to be researched 

To learn more about literature reviews check What is a Literature Review . 

The methods section should briefly explain how you plan to conduct your study and why you have chosen a particular method. You may also include  

• your overall study design (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) and the proposed stages 
• your proposed research instruments (e.g. surveys, interviews)  
• your proposed participant recruitment channels / document selection criteria 
• a description of your proposed study participants (age, gender, etc.). 
• how you plan to analyze the data.  

You should cite relevant literature on research methods to support your choices. 

The conclusion section should include a short summary about the implications and significance of your proposed study by explaining how the possible findings may change the ways educators and/or stakeholders address the issues identified in your introduction. 

Depending on the assignment instructions, the conclusion can also highlight next steps and a timeline for the research process. 

To learn more about paper conclusions, check How to write Conclusions . 

List all references you used and format them according to APA style. Make sure that everything in your reference list is cited in the paper, and every citation in your paper is in your reference list.  

To learn more about writing citations and references, check Citations & APA . 

These are detailed guidelines on how to prepare a quantitative research proposal. Adapted from the course APD2293 “Interpretation of Educational Research”. These guidelines are hyperlinked in the following Resource Page:  

Related Resource Pages on ASH

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to Prepare a Literature Review
• How to Understand & Plan Assignments
• Citations and APA Style
• How to Integrate Others' Research into your Writing
• How to Write Introductions
• How to Write Conclusions

Additional Resources

• Writing a research proposal– University of Southern California   
• Owl Purdue-Graduate-Specific Genres-Purdue University  
• 10 Tips for Writing a research proposal – McGill University  

On Campus Services

• Book a writing consultation (OSSC)
• Book a Research Consultation (OISE Library)

Table of Contents

What is a project report, how to create a project report in 5 steps, project report objectives, project report components, common project report types, project report use cases, project report examples, opening and viewing reports with microsoft , change data in your report , change the report format , make your report , share your report , choose the right program, train to become a project leader today, mastering project reports: a guide to success.

Managing a project is by no means an easy feat. Many moving parts can make it complicated to stay focused on the tasks and keep stakeholders up to date on the project status. This is why project reports are a useful tool for project managers .

These project reports can be used to provide direction for team members, offer status updates for partners or management teams, and successfully manage risk mitigation – to name just a few! 

Learn from experts who help you pass the examination post enrolling in Simplilearn's PMP training course. Sign-up today for PMP® Certification Training Course !

Let’s take a closer look at how to create a project report including its many objectives, components, and examples of project reports.

A project report is a comprehensive document that provides detailed information about a specific project. It typically outlines the project's objectives, scope, methodology, progress, findings, and outcomes. A project report often includes details about the project's goals, activities, timelines, resources used, challenges faced, and the results achieved. It serves as a formal record of the project's lifecycle, serving both as a documentation of the work done and as a communication tool to convey the project's status and outcomes to stakeholders, sponsors, or interested parties. Project reports are commonly used in various fields such as business, engineering, research, and academia to assess the effectiveness and success of a project.

Creating project reports is an integral part of evaluating project success. Documenting the lessons learned and sharing them with a larger team in an organized way can help with future projects. You can use different tools to put together your project report. Here are 7 basic steps involved in creating a project report - 

1. Know Your Objective 

Sit down, evaluate your objectives, and understand what you want to describe, explain, recommend, and prove with your report. Having set goals will not only help you proceed with your project report but also help readers understand your point of view. 

2. Recognize Your Audience

Your audience plays an essential role in making your project report a success. A formal annual report differs from a financial report: the language, representation of data, and analysis changes per your target audience . 

3. Data Collection 

The chances of you having a solid report is when data supports it. Data plays an essential role in making people believe in your derivations. Also, support your claims by citing sources such as case studies, surveys, interviews, etc. 

4. Structure the Report

A project report is further divided into certain sections. These 4 are the most common divisions of a project report:

• Summary: The summary gives the reader a download of all covered in the project report. Even though a summary is placed at the beginning of a project report, you can only write it once your entire report is complete. 
• Introduction: Mention the outline of the report, give context and mention the scope and methodologies used in the report. 
• Body: This is the lengthy section of the report as it contains background details, analysis, data, and graphics. 
• Conclusion: This section brings the entire project report together. 

5. Edit and Proofread 

Once your project report is ready, read it multiple times with some time gap. You can ask your co-workers to review it. 

Become a Project Management Professional

• 6% Growth In Jobs Of Project Management Profiles By 2024
• 22 Million Jobs Estimated For Project Management Professionals By 2027

PMP® Certification Training

• Access to Digital Materials from PMI
• 12 Full-Length Simulation Test Papers (180 Questions Each)

Professional Certificate Program in Project Management

• Receive a course completion certificate and UMass Alumni Association membership
• Learn from industry professionals and certified instructors who bring years of practical experience and expertise to the classroom

Here's what learners are saying regarding our programs:

Katrina Tanchoco

Shell - manila ,.

The interactive sessions make a huge difference as I'm able to ask for further clarifications. The training sessions are more engaging than the self-paced modules, it's easier now that i first decided to take up the online classroom training, and then followed it up with the self-paced learning (online and readings).

PHC Business Manager , Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit

I wanted to transition into the Project Management field and wanted the right opportunity to do so. Thus, I took that leap forward and enrolled in this course. My learning experience was fantastic. It suited my learning style.

Every project report starts with a solid project report objective. Your objective should provide precise direction for the rest of the report. Consider what purpose you want your project report to serve. Are you describing new risks or explaining project delays? Or will your report focus on persuading management teams or stockholders to invest additional funds into the project? 

A thorough understanding of your objective will help guide you in writing the report and make the purpose of the report clear to all stakeholders.

Here are a few examples of project report objectives:

• Requesting approval for a new project
• Tracking the progress of the project
• Identifying and managing risks
• Managing costs and budgets
• Requesting financial assistance

Your project report will be bursting with essential information about your project. Although the content of your report will differ depending on the type of report you’re creating, keeping your report organized will make it easy for the reader to follow along without missing any critical points. Organize your data and content into sections that allow all stakeholders to quickly reference.

Consider including some of the following project report components:

Executive Summary 

The first section of your report will likely include an executive summary. The brief overview should provide all the essential takeaways from the report, allowing the reader to understand the report's contents without having to read through all of the project details.

Project Progress

This component includes real metrics that track your project’s progress. It offers an overview of the project's status and budget while identifying risks or issues that may have emerged. Helping project management and other stakeholders reflect on the project schedule and make amendments as needed.

Risks and Risk Management

What risks have developed that may affect the quality, timeline, or budget of your project? How will you control these emerging elements? It’s inevitable that all projects will face risks, so it’s how you intend to manage those risks that’s important to the project team and stakeholders. Include a detailed analysis of the risk, your proposed solutions, and how these new elements will affect the project as a whole. 

Are your financials where they need to be for the current status of your project? Will more capital be required to reach your goals effectively? Provide a detailed overview of the allocation of your budget including materials, labor, and operating costs. 

Reflect on your project goals. Is the project behind, ahead, or on schedule? How will any changes to your timelines affect your budget or resources? Include an overview of tasks that have already been completed and a comprehensive schedule of remaining tasks.

Resources may include materials, machinery, or even funding required to complete your project. Provide a detailed summary of your current resource allocation. What are detrimental resources for your project running low? Are there any excess amounts?  

Team Performance

Is your team completing tasks efficiently? Are there any skill or knowledge gaps that need to be addressed? Compare your team’s performance to your initial goals to identify the group’s progress.

A project report is a simple and detailed description of the essence of the project and its aims and aspirations. The business management team and stakeholders are kept updated on every development regarding the project; based on that, they prepare their strategy. This vital information keeps the communication line open between the management team and the stakeholders, providing them with a complete picture of every action concerning the project. 

A project report includes the necessary recommendations for all types of businesses, established and start-ups. Moreover, organizations use project reports to procure financial help from institutions. Project reports can be of various types that help everyone complete a project successfully. Based on the report, your team can take up any activity that benefits the project. 

Status Reports

It talks about the progress going on with a project. It also states various significant activities associated with the project. This status report organizes the communication medium between the team and the stakeholders. It summarizes the finished tasks on the project at hand. It includes the budgetary details and the timeline of the project. It also helps identify the risks related to the project and measures to tackle them beforehand. The status report also keeps track of the events or actions or any activity taken in the past. Status reports are carried out weekly, daily, monthly, or quarterly. They help collect and distribute information about crucial activities in a project in a smooth manner. 

Progress Report

While executing a project, a progress report is inevitably carried out to update everything about the project. It usually includes things like if the project baseline is fulfilled. It indicates the initial plan you prepared along with your stakeholders about a project regarding the expectations, schedules, cost, deliverables , and scope of it. A progress report informs your stakeholders how much progress has been made in the above directions. 

You should prepare this status report in a specific manner by stating the project title, contact information, a summary of the status, and providing all the information about the budget, timeline, and expected completion date of the project. You can take the help of several such free templates available online to make the status report. 

Risk Reports

This type of report explains the risks associated with the project in a documented form. It covers details about risks that are managed already and the emerging ones. It includes the overall risk profile of the project. Risk reports identify and state potential risks that could alter the duration of the project and tips to manage them. 

Board Executive Reports

An executive report is a summary of the business plan of an organization for lending partners. It enables the team members to collect and combine the results of numerous research studies to help them decide on the project. It is the starting point of arranging a dialogue with the investors. It should be written in such a way that it creates the best impression in the minds of the lenders. It should be short and precise and comprehensively analyze the project. 

Cost Benefit Analysis Report

This kind of report helps organizations know if a particular project is possible or not. It will show you how much the project will benefit your organization against the investment. It will help you decide if a project is worth taking on for your organization and how much business profit it will get you at the end of the day. Alternatively, it will also help your organization better utilize its resources while progressing with the project. You can monitor your project expenses and spending to manage your funds better. 

Resource Reports

This report highlights the distribution of resources according to the project tasks. The team members and the investors get the necessary information by reading this report on how well the resources are distributed in the project. It will give detailed narration about which team is assigned to which task according to the date wise. This type of report is beneficial for an organization to know if there is over allocation of resources as this could harm the project. Overall allocation happens when there are insufficient resources to complete all the crucial activities of the project. 

Variance Reports

This report helps you compare your overall project plan with the project's end result. It uses metrics to inform you if your project is running according to the timeline, ahead of time, or running late. Moreover, it will streamline the data based on the comparisons you have made on the project. With the availability of various project management tools , preparing this kind of report has become easier now. It cuts down your hard work by creating the project activity report and conveying it to the stakeholders. 

Gap Analysis Report

This report will examine the project's current status in the context of schedule, cost, and labor and, subsequently, compare the targeted status. It discovers and examines the gap between these two aspects and prepares a strategy or action plan on how to do the needful to reach the targeted objectives. Every business, whether a budding one or an established one, will need this kind of gap analysis report to perform better in terms of projects. This report will tell you how to take the successful step to graduate to the next level of your business. This will tell you whether you are fulfilling your business objectives and using your resources carefully. 

There are several common use cases for project reports in project management. These include:

Project Status Report 

A project status report is used regularly throughout a project to communicate the project’s progress in conjunction with the original project plan. The status report of a project provides all stakeholders with updates on the project’s development and performance. Your status report may cover issues or risks that have emerged and include your amended project plan.

Project Tracking Report

A project tracking report offers real numbers, metrics, and other key indicators that measure the project’s overarching progress. This comprehensive report covers all aspects of the project, including project status, tasks, project team performance, and how much of the project has been completed.

Project Performance Report

Performance reports provide an overview of the project’s progress, a breakdown of resource allocation, and costs to date. Your performance report will help monitor the project’s current direction and forecast how well it will perform.  

Project Health Report

A health report offers an analysis of any problem areas or risks within your project. Completing a project health report can help identify any potential issues before they occur, saving you time, money, and resources.

Project Summary Report

A project summary report provides a quick snapshot of the project’s status. Along with tasks completed and a summary of financials, the brief report should include any key highlights or milestones and a glance at upcoming scheduled tasks. 

Project Time Tracking Report

Project time tracking reports help the team and all stakeholders better understand the time allocation for each task. It’s a useful tool for project managers to gauge their teams' efficiency and identify what areas need improvement. 

Not sure where to start with your next project report? Consulting the right project report example can help you gain the direction you need.

Click here for a status report example.

Using Project, one can easily create new reports or customize them for various types of project data without relying on any other application or software. MS Project offers dozens that you can use right away. You can also customize any report’s content and look or build a new one from scratch.

• Click the Report tab and then click the View Reports group. 
• Select the type of report you need.

For instance, if you have to open the Project Overview report, navigate Report > Dashboards > Project Overview.

Reports Dashboard Option

Reports are customizable. So, you choose the data that MS Project will show in any part of a report. Follow the steps below to change the data in your report:

• Click the chart or table you would like to alter. 
• Use the Field list pane present on the right side to select fields to filter and show data. 
• Also, clicking a chart displays three pop-up buttons on the right-hand side of the chart. You can opt for the Chart Elements or Chart Filters button to select elements and filter chart data.

For instance, take the previous Project Overview report as an example. You can change the % Complete chart and display critical subtasks rather than top-level summary tasks using the below-mentioned steps:

• Click anywhere in the % Complete chart.
• Now, in the Field List pane, navigate to the Filter box. 
• Select the Critical option.
• Next, pick level 2 in the Outline Level box. Let’s suppose that this is the first level of the outline with subtasks rather than summary tasks.
• The chart will reflect the change as you make your selections.

Changes in the % Complete Chart

Using Project, you can go from monotonous black-white to vivid effects and colors. With the Split view, you will be able to view the real-time report changes while you make the changes. To change the report format, take the following steps:

• Click the report (you can click anywhere).
• Now click Report Tools and click the Design tab. It will display options for changing the look of the entire report. 
• Using this tab, you can alter the color, font, or theme of the entire report. You can also include images, charts, shapes, or tables here.

Report Tools Options

• Clicking on individual elements such as tables, charts, and others of a report will display new tabs at the top of the screen for formatting that part. 

Table Styles

• Use the Drawing Tools Format tab to change shapes. 
• The Picture Tools Format tab will help you add picture effects.  
• You can configure and tweak tables using the Table Tools Design and Table Tools Layout tabs. 
• The Chart Tools Format and Chart Tools Design tabs help tweak charts. Also, clicking on a chart displays three buttons on the right side of the chart. You can use the Chart Styles button to modify the chart color or style. 

Suppose you plan to change the % Complete chart in the Project Overview report. Click anywhere in the chart and tap on the Chart Tools Design.

% Complete Chart

• From the Chart Styles, pick a new style for your chart. The option selected in the following image adds shadows to the columns and removes the lines.

Chart Styles in Chart Tools Design

• Next, you can click Chart Tools Design > Change Chart Type to add some depth.

• You can change the columns by clicking Column > 3-D Stacked Column.

• To add a background color, click Chart Tools Format > Shape Fill. Now pick a new color. You can explore more color options by clicking on more fill colors.

Color Options for Chart

• Alter bar colors by selecting the bars and then click the Chart Tools Format > Shape Fill option. Pick the color you want. 
• You can drag the numbers upwards to get them off the chart. 

The above-stated changes will be reflected as follows.

% Complete Chart on Making the Changes 

Take the following steps to create a new report. 

• Click the Report tab and then click New Report.
• Pick from the four options: 
• Blank: Provides a blank canvas that you can use to add charts, text, tables, and images using the Report Tools Design tab.
• Chart: It is suitable for comparing Actual Work, Work by default, and Remaining Work. Using the Field List pane, you can pick different fields for comparison or use the controls to alter the format and color of the chart.
• Table: It displays tabular information. Using the Field List pane, you can select what fields are to be displayed in the table.  
• Comparison: It gives you two charts side-by-side. Initially, they will have the same data. You can click on the chart and choose the information of your choice in the Field List pane. 

Types of New Report Styles

• Name your report and start adding information to it. All charts are fully customizable. You can easily add or delete elements to meet your needs.
• You can make your new report available for future projects by using the Organizer to copy this new report into the global template. 
• Click anywhere in the report.
• Navigate Report Tools Design > Copy Report.

Copy Report Option

• Now paste the report into any program of your choice. You might have to resize or align the report when you paste it elsewhere. You can also opt for the printing option for sharing hard copies. 

Are you looking to take your project management skills to the next level? Look no further than Simplilearn's comprehensive project management courses!

Our courses are designed to help professionals at every level of experience to develop and enhance their project management skills, whether you're just starting out in the field or looking to advance your career. With our courses, you'll gain practical, hands-on experience in managing projects from start to finish, and learn best practices and industry standards that will set you apart from the competition.

Program Name PMP® Certification Training Course PMP Plus Post Graduate Program In Project Management glyph Icons All Geos All Geos All Geos University PMI Simplilearn University of Massachusetts Amherst Course Duration 90 Days of Flexible Access to Online Classes 36 Months 6 Months Coding experience reqd No No No Skills you wll learn 8+ PM skills including Work Breakdown Structure, Gantt Charts, Resource Allocation, Leadership and more. 6 courses including Project Management, Agile Scrum Master, Implementing a PMO, and More 9+ skills including Project Management, Quality Management, Agile Management, Design Thinking and More. Additional Benefits -Experiential learning through case studies -Global Teaching Assistance -35PDUs -Learn by working on real-world problems -24x7 Learning support from mentors -Earn 60+ PDU’s -3 year course access Cost $$ $$$$ $$$$ Explore Program Explore Program Explore Program

Become a digital-age project leader with Simplilearn’s PMP® Certification Training . Created to align with the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification, you’ll learn the frameworks, tools, and skills to drive successful projects.

In this course, you will learn how to manage quality and risk, create effective strategies, implement best practices, and ultimately, deliver results.

1. What is a project report and its significance?

A project report summarizes a project's key aspects, including its goals, timeline, budget, progress, and outcomes. It provides project managers with critical information to monitor and evaluate the project's performance, identify potential risks and challenges, and communicate progress to stakeholders.

2. What is the format of a project report?

A project report format is completely customizable depending on the project requirements and your choices. However, it should focus on the specific objectives of the project, its methodology,  major findings, and progress. 

3. How do you prepare a project report?

Preparing a project report is simple. Click Report > New Report and choose from the four options. Now, give a suitable name to the report and start adding information. 

4. What is a project report with an example?

A project report is a document providing detail on the project’s overall status or specific aspects of its performance. Irrespective of the report type, it contains project data based on economic, financial, technical, managerial or production aspects. For example, a Cost Overview report tells the current cost status of the project. It also reveals planned costs, remaining costs, cumulative costs, actual costs, and percentage of completion to help understand if the project is within budget.

5. How do you write a complete project report?

Writing a complete project report entails a proper start and closure, including

• Labeling the document and writing the project overview 
• Including a section for the project’s scope 
• A well-formulated project performance analysis.
• Highlighting the project’s accomplishments, results, and outcomes.

Our Project Management Courses Duration And Fees

Project Management Courses typically range from a few weeks to several months, with fees varying based on program and institution.

Get Free Certifications with free video courses

Project Management

Learn from industry experts with free masterclasses.

Career Masterclass: How to Successfully Ace the PMP Exam on Your First Attempt in 2024

Career Masterclass: Become an AI-Savvy Project Manager: The Skills You Need to Thrive

How to Successfully Ace the PMP Exam on Your First Attempt in 2024

Recommended Reads

Project Management Interview Guide

How to Create a Google Analytics Report?

What is Google Data Studio and How to Create Report On It?

Report: The Future of IT Jobs in India

Communicating Project Status to an Executive

How to Create a Maven Project in Eclipse

Get Affiliated Certifications with Live Class programs

• PMP, PMI, PMBOK, CAPM, PgMP, PfMP, ACP, PBA, RMP, SP, and OPM3 are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.

What Are Project Reports? Components, Types, and Uses

Project management can be defined as an academic field concerned with the planning, execution, and monitoring of projects. Of these tools, the project report occupies the central role since this tool is used in the form of a report that highlights the project and its condition, problems, and results achieved by the stakeholders. It is important for project managers and any other professional seeking to become PMP certified to appreciate the purpose, types, and uses of project reports that are used in projects. These aspects will be explored in this blog on how project reports can be effectively utilized in managing projects.

What is a Project Report?

A project report is a written report containing information on project aspects such as achievements, challenges, and outcomes. It represents the present state of the project and the accomplishments, issues faced, and deviations vis a vis the plan formulated earlier. Furthermore, this report is a documentary, a necessary component in project management, which contains an overall analysis that can help in the decision, thus addressing the course requirements aligned with the project goals.

Furthermore, for people who aspire to pass a PMP examination, the ability to create and analyze project reports is significant. These reports are part of the continuum of other project management knowledge known as the PMBOK , which is the basis for the PMP exam. Gathering the project reports is not only useful when preparing for the PMP exam, but also when working on actual projects.

What are the Components of Project Reports?

The components of project reports are as follows:

1. Executive Summary

The executive summary is the first element to be placed in a project report but the last to be composed. It is a summary of the entire report focusing on essential information about the project when it was completed, and what was discovered. Furthermore, this section facilitates immediate understanding by the stakeholders, executives, or readers at first glance without the need to scour through the document. It should capture the project goals, outcomes, conclusions, and recommendations in a very simple way. In short, this section provides critical context for the report, laying the foundation for the subsequent analysis and insights.

2. Introduction

The introduction serves as the foundation of the project report. It explains the context of the project, including its background and rationale. This is essential in questioning why the project began in the first place. What is the problem that it is planned to solve or the opportunity it seeks to exploit? Here, you also describe the project scope management , and what is included in the work and what is not, to help the audience understand the limits of the report. Thus, by clearly setting the stage in the introduction, you align your readers with the project’s purpose.

3. Objectives

It provides a clear and specific description of what was undertaken and achieved which represents the goals or targets in the project. These objectives must be SMART, namely Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. For example, a measure could be to increase the levels of customer fulfillment by 15% in the next half an educational year due to the upgrade in the standards of services being offered. Thus, managers’ purpose statements help stakeholders and set goals to measure project effectiveness.

4. Methodology

Critically important for describing how the project was implemented. It outlines how information is collected and how tasks are performed. For instance, if it involved research, one would discuss the procedures that were followed in data collection activities such as surveys, interviews, and data mining among others, and why the specific approach was embraced. Depending on the details of the case, this part may also involve aspects linked to the schedule, usage of resources, and people involved in the project. The purpose is to provide the audience with a clear understanding of the processes followed in accomplishing the findings and make the work reproducible.

5. Findings/Analysis

Here, you describe the findings and recommendations for the data gathered in the project. Depending on the nature of the project, it may entail statistical data, surveys, or specific operation information. Moreover, they apply the results to answer the initial questions, and objectives of the work indicated in the syllabus or class guidelines. It is recommended to use charts, tables, or graphs to support the information and make it easy to understand. Additionally, the section should show achieved results and if the project met objectives with supporting evidence.

6. Conclusion

The conclusion wraps up the entire project and gives an overview of all the key results noted in the project. It should provide an analysis as to whether the set objectives were completed and assess the general implication of the results. In addition, it brings together all the aspects of the report, corroborating the assertion of the project’s value in addressing the problem stated at the onset or fulfilling the need established at the start. Also, a chance to report any unforeseen problems or new observations that emerged during the work, providing a thorough recap.

7. Recommendations

Recommendations present data analysis results and recommendations derived from the project. Closely related, they provide recommendations on how to respond to identified issues, build upon achieved accomplishments, or enhance performance outcomes. For instance, if a project report was to show that there were weaknesses in a certain process, then a suggestion could be to acquire a new software application to organize the process.

Types of Project Reports

There are several types of project reports, each serving a different purpose and audience. So, Understanding these types is essential for effective project management and is a key component of the PMP certification curriculum.

1. Status Report

Customarily floated periodically to report the updated state of the project. They identify and outline what has been done, what is being done, and the challenges or risks experienced in the process. On this same note, status reports are useful in making sure that everyone involved is up to date and on the same page regarding the project, and that any issues are corrected immediately. These may contain elements of the planned as well as actual schedules, costs, and resource utilization.

2. Progress Report

It is a more specific report on the events that have been accomplished in a given phase of the project. This identifies the tasks that have been done and which ones are still ongoing, which helps in measuring the degree of progress toward the set goals and objectives. In addition, this kind of report is commonly necessary in the middle of a large project to show that the team is working properly and to make changes if needed. It is used as a control to determine if the project management plan requires any adjustments for the project to get back on track.

3. Feasibility Report

Evaluates the feasibility and possibilities of a suggested plan or strategy. It looks at various factors like costs, time, resources, and risks to decide whether he or she should proceed with or support the project. Further, it is useful to decision-makers when presenting an impartial assessment of the probable results of the vs. For instance, if engaged in the development of a new product, a feasibility report would comprise an analysis of market demand, cost of production, and possible sales revenue.

4. Final Report

The project is closed at the end of the performance and a comprehensive report on the project life cycle . It may encompass the project aim, strategies, results, and the general conclusion of the project. Therefore, this type of report is important for identifying various lessons that have been learned as well as assessing whether the project was successful or not. Furthermore, it can be used as a future resource that shows other team’s performance improvements based on their experience on the project.

5. Risk Report

Intelligently recognizes hazards that are likely to impede the realization of a given project. It captures the hazards, assesses the probability, and severity of the risk, and provides recommendations. Biweekly or weekly risk reports are crucial for project stability, allowing teams to identify and address risks before they escalate. A good risk report identifies both current and potential future risks, preparing teams for issues that may arise later.

6. Technical Report

A technical report delves into the technical aspects of the project, often focusing on methodologies, engineering processes, or scientific data. It is most common in industries such as IT, engineering, and research. Moreover, this report provides detailed insights into the technical work done during the project and is often used for documenting innovations, processes, and technical findings. It helps ensure that future teams can replicate the work or build upon it without starting from scratch

Uses of Project Reports

These reports are versatile in their applicability in managing projects, which makes them indispensable tools. The following are some of the key uses:

1. Performance Tracking

Project reports are used to monitor the actual performance of the project relative to the set goals. It is a direct comparison between how much has been done and what should have been done according to the project management plan and the project manager acts accordingly. Thus, it is especially relevant for PMP certification holders as performance measurement and tracking are among the competencies of project management.

2. Stakeholder Communication

Stakeholder communication is an important component of project management to enhance project outcomes. Project reports serve the purpose of escalating the information concerning the progress of the projects. Moreover, it assists in keeping expectations under control and retaining the stakeholders’ support during the complete life cycle of the project.

3. Decision-Making

Business project reports supply the details and the findings essential for making the appropriate business decisions. In summary, project reports contain the information necessary to make strategic decisions about the project, such as when to allocate more resources, change the timing of the project, or effectively address new risks.

4. Risk Management

Risk mitigation is an important consideration when it comes to project management , and project reports are integral in this process. Also, Project managers discuss and evaluate different risks in daily reports, actively working to prevent their impact on success.

5. Financial Management

Cost reports and other financial project reports are invaluable for monitoring the project budget. Planners identify cost overruns by comparing actual expenses to the budget and adjust costs to stay within budget limits.

6. Resource Management

Resource reports assist project managers in determining the efficient and effective use of resources. Thus, the information about the actual distribution helps to determine their scarcity and to decide on further actions.

7. Documentation and Reporting

Project reports are legal documents that can provide a formal account of a project that has been implemented. Project Documentation is important not only for the particular project it is created for but also for the future. Use these reports in lessons-learned sessions, post-project evaluations, or during planning for related projects.

PMP certification candidates must learn the various types of project reports and their use across different project phases. Also, they cover the PMP certification exam and provide knowledge that will come in handy while handling projects in that field.

So, as you continue your journey in project management, whether through professional experience or PMP , remember that effective reporting is not just about filling in templates or meeting deadlines. It’s about creating meaningful, actionable documents that provide the insights needed to drive your projects to successful completion.

Previous Post

What is a project management team & what are their roles, quick enquiry.

• Project Management
• PMP Certification
• PgMP Certification
• Disciplined Agile

Popular Posts

• How I prepared my Journey towards PMP Certification?
• Memoirs of the road towards PMP® Certification!
• How to report on PMI®- PDUs for Project Management Certifications?
• Communications – Key to Project Success!

Follow Us on:

Download pmp brochure, upcoming pmp batches.

• Corporate Training
• Online Mock Tests
• Advisory Services
• Why ProThoughts
• Our Training Locations
• Become an Instructor
• Become Our Guest Blogger
• Looking for PM Professionals?
• Refer & Earn
• About Rita Mulcahy
• About Mike Griffith
• Game-based learning
• PMI event 2022
• Announcements
• Workshop Gallery
• Our Experts

Free Resources

• Project Management Videos
• PMP Eligibility Calculator
• PgMP Eligibility Calculator
• Disciplined Agile Eligibility Calculator
• PfMP Eligibility Calculator
• How to Earn PDUs

Stay Connected 

We accept 

PMP, PMI, PMBOK, CAPM, PgMP, PMI-ACP, Disciplined Agile, PMI Registered Education Provider Logo and PMI ATP Logo are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.

ProThoughts Solutions is a PMI-registered Premier Authorized Training Partner (ATP), REP ID: 4032.

Note: ProThoughts reserves the right to cancel or reschedule events in case of insufficient registrations, or unforeseen circumstances. You are advised to consult a ProThoughts Consultant prior to making any travel arrangements for a workshop. For more details, please refer to Cancellation & Refund Policy under Terms & Conditions.

Terms & Conditions         Privacy Policy        

© 2024 Prothoughts. All rights reserved

• GSS Data Explorer

The General Social Survey is recruiting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to participate in a brief interview study to improve the accessibility of the GSS website and the GSS Data Explorer. If you, or someone you know, is a STEM researcher who uses online survey data and/or who uses GSS data, please email GSSaccessibility@norc.org to determine your eligibility.

​​​Articles on methodological issues in survey research specifically dealing with the GSS as well as more general problems.

Wells, Brian M.; Christian, Leah; Bautista, Rene; Lafia, Sara; Davern, Michael

Methodological Reports

Multimode data collection methodologies can help address survey challenges such as declining rates of participation, rising costs, and increasing needs for more timely data collection. However, the order of survey modes as part of a data collection protocol can have an impact on how effective a design can be. This brief explores how the sequential ordering of web and face-to-face (FTF) in a nationally representative survey may impact response rates, key trends, and overall costs. In 2022, the General Social Survey (GSS) was fielded as a multimode study where respondents were randomly assigned to one of two data collection sequences in an experimental design. The first sequence used FTF as the primary mode and then invited all nonrespondents to complete the survey on the web (FTF-first). The second sequence started with a push-to-web (PTW) methodology and then invited a subsample of nonrespondents to complete the survey in a FTF interview (Web-first). Our analyses found that both sequences produced comparable results and neither sequence achieved a better response rate. For costs, the Web-first sequencing was more cost effective per completed interview, but the PTW follow-up in the FTF-first sequence increased response rates at a lower cost and did not require subsampling of nonrespondents.

GSS years: 2022

Morgan, Stephen L.

Some longstanding questionnaire items of the GSS have gender-specific wordings, and the attitudes that they are assumed to measure could be elicited with gender-neutral wordings. This report details and evaluates a 2021 and 2022 experiment that introduces gender-neutral wording alternatives, implemented using a random half-sample assignment of two questionnaire forms. The estimated treatment effects are small, both substantively and with respect to their standard errors. The report recommends that the alternative gender-neutral wordings become the standard wordings for their respective items beginning with the 2026 GSS.

GSS years: 2021, 2022

Wells, Brian M.; Sparkman, Rachel

This report details the inclusion of AmeriSpeak® panelists as an oversample population in the 2022 General Social Survey (GSS) and the implications of including Black, Hispanic, and Asian oversample from this sample source. This report provides an overview of the AmeriSpeak sample and its properties relevant for the 2022 GSS. We examine how the AmeriSpeak oversample cases compare to the baseline GSS sample and how they impact estimates at the population and oversampled group levels.

The high-level findings are as follows:

• The AmeriSpeak cases exhibit some demographic differences from their baseline counterparts, but often improve representation, particularly for racial and ethnic subgroups (e.g., South American Hispanic groups, Chinese).

• Given the AmeriSpeak sample only completed the GSS on the web, there are some differences in substantive responses consistent with previous GSS work suggesting sensitivity to mode.

• U.S. population estimates should exhibit minimal differences between the existing 2022 estimates without the AmeriSpeak oversample as with the AmeriSpeak oversample.

• Including the Black and Hispanic oversamples minimally change the overall estimates for their respective subpopulations, but including the Asian oversample does produce large estimate changes for Asian subpopulation given the oversample accounts for a majority of the total Asian sample.

The AmeriSpeak oversample offers increased sample sizes for Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents in the 2022 GSS Cross-section. In particular, the sample size for Asian respondents more than doubles with the inclusion of the oversample given their low prevalence in the population. While the Asian subpopulation estimates see more movement than their Black and Hispanic counterparts, we see improved representation for Asian subgroups, suggesting a potential improvement in estimation more broadly given the small initial sample size. Researchers are encouraged to conduct their own research to determine additional impacts of including the AmeriSpeak oversample.

Wells, Brian M.; Seeskin, Zachary H.; Ihde, Amy

This report describes a new set of post-stratification weights available for users of the 1972-2018 General Social Survey (GSS) cross-sectional surveys to help improve nonresponse bias adjustment. The weight derivation follows the approach applied to 2021 and 2022 GSS Cross-sections. Use of these weights results in weighted totals that, for each GSS cross-sectional sample, equal marginal control totals from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for education, sex, marital status, age, region of the country, race, U.S. born status, and Hispanic origin when available. NORC recommends that GSS data users use this new weight for all analyses in the future. These weights also: (a) correct for the form assignment errors reported in GSS Methodological Report 36 for 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985; (b) correct for the ballot-and-form assignment errors reported in GSS Methodological Report 134 for 2002, 2010, 2012, 2016, and 2018; and (c) support person-level analyses of the combined main and Black oversamples for 1982 and 1987. Given the global trend of declining response rates over the past several years, the use of auxiliary data, such as U.S. Census totals for nonresponse adjustment, is important for improving representativeness of estimates with respect to key demographic characteristics. In addition, this report examines the impact of using the poststratification weights across all GSS cross-sections. The majority of estimate differences observed include poststratification variables and their close correlates.

GSS years: 1972-2018

Wells, Brian M.; Davern, Michael; Ihde, Amy; Bautista, Rene

Methodological Reports, NORC Working Paper

The General Social Survey (GSS), a biennial nationally representative survey of the U.S. adult population, has employed subsampling since 2004. Approximately halfway through the field period in years prior to 2020, half of the remaining cases are randomly subsampled for a more focused follow-up, while the other cases are dropped. Subsampling in the GSS has helped to improve response rates and to achieve cost and sample size efficiencies (O’Muircheartaigh and Eckman 2007). This paper explores the extent to which subsampled (or late) respondents vary from non-subsampled (or early) respondents in GSS 2014, 2016, and 2018. We first examine the demographic characteristics of early and late respondents. Second, we explore substantive differences between the two groups on key analytic variables (e.g., attitudes toward premarital sex, abortion, the death penalty, gun regulation, marijuana legalization, national spending priorities). Finally, we examine differences between early and late respondents on key GSS analytic variables controlling for demographic differences using multivariate logistic regression. Our investigations over three years of the GSS suggest that some demographic and

substantive differences between early and late respondents exist, consistent with previous GSS research (Smith 2006). Our results also suggest that most of the differences on key analytic variables do not persist after controlling for demographic characteristics in multivariate logistic regression models. This finding is consistent with past research on interviewer-administered surveys that find that late respondents are not different from early responders on most variables net of demographic characteristics (e.g., Keeter et al. 2006). Differences found between the 2014, 2016, and 2018 analyses emphasize the need for continued research related to subsampling in the GSS.

GSS years: 2014, 2016, 2018

This memo describes a new set of post-stratification weights available for users of the 2000–2018 GSS cross-sectional surveys. The weight derivation follows the approach applied to the previously released 2021 GSS Cross-section, for which post-stratification weights were developed to improve nonresponse bias adjustment, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on survey operations and response rate. Use of these weights results in weighted totals of each GSS cross-sectional sample that equal marginal control totals from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for education, sex, marital status, age, region of the country, race, Hispanic origin, and U.S. born status. These weights also correct for the ballot and ballot-and-form assignment errors reported in GSS Methodological Report 134 for 2002, 2010, 2012, 2016, and 2018. The use of auxiliary data such as U.S. Census totals for nonresponse adjustment is important for improving representativeness of estimates with respect to key demographic characteristics, given the global trend of declining response rates over the past several years.

GSS years: 2002, 2010, 2012,2016, 2018

Christian, Leah; Davis, Nicholas; Lancaster, Caroline; Paddock, Susan

As previously reported, an unintended overlap between respondent selection and questionnaire assignment procedures in GSS surveys created an association between questionnaire version (ballot and form) and age order in some households in the historical GSS data. This assignment error occurred in data years 2002, 2010, 2012, 2016 and 2018.  This methodological report describes the equivalence testing to compare original and corrected estimates for each category and each variable for all questions in the affected years. The analysis shows that the error differences due to the assignment error are overall relatively small and corrected weights have been provided for data users.

GSS years: 2002, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2018,

Cowan, Sarah K.; Hout, Michael; Perett, Stuart

Long-running surveys need a systematic way to reflect social change and to keep items relevant to respondents, especially when they ask about controversial subjects, or they threaten the items’ validity. We propose a protocol for updating measures that preserves content and construct validity. First, substantive experts articulate the current and anticipated future terms of debate. Then survey experts use this substantive input and their knowledge of existing measures to develop and pilot a large battery of new items. Third, researchers analyze the pilot data to select items for the survey of record. Finally, the items appear on the survey-of-record, available to the whole user community. Surveys-of-record have procedures for changing content that determine if the new items appear just once or become part of the core. We provide the example of developing new abortion attitude measures in the General Social Survey. Current questions ask whether abortion should be legal under varying circumstances. The new abortion items ask about morality, access, state policy, and interpersonal dynamics. They improve content and construct validity and add new insights into Americans’ abortion attitudes.

Morgan, Stephen L.; Lee, Jiwon

In this report, we present strategies for constructing weights to adjust for attrition in the GSS treble panel. We offer Stata code for the construction of the weights that we explain, as well as data files of weights that researchers may wish to adopt for their own use. 

GSS years: 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014

(no abstract provided)

GSS years: 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018

Smith, Tom W.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2019

* Please note this is an updated version of MR009 (1979). The problem of underrepresentation of males on the GSS reflects the nonresponse tendency of males, possibly exacerbated by female interviewers. Surveys using full probability sampling generally have an underrepresentation of males.

Smith, Tom W.; Son, Jaesok

GSS years: 2016

Stephen L. Morgan

For the 2020 GSS, a review of the free expression items  suggested revisions to “a Muslim clergyman who preaches hatred of the United States,” as part of a broader effort by the GSS Board to reassess all GSS items that are gender-specific in some way. Two gender-neutral alternatives were discussed, “an Islamic cleric who preaches hatred of the United States” and “an Islamic religious leader who preaches hatred of the United States.” For the reasons detailed below, it is possible that a switch to “an Islamic cleric who preaches hatred of the United States” could prompt an undesirable discontinuity in response patterns, beyond what could be expected to result from a gender-neutral substitution. If some GSS respondents are more likely to suspect  that the referenced Islamic cleric has a connection to terrorism, the elicited response may be a mixture of opposition to free expression and a perceived fear of physical violence, with more weighting on the latter. In contrast, “an Islamic religious leader who preaches hatred of the United States” may be preferable, if it is the case that GSS respondents are no more likely to infer a threat to their security than is the case for “a Muslim clergyman who preaches hatred of the United States.” In this report, I offer two sets of results to inform decisions about the questionnaire for the 2020 GSS. First, to set the background, I use GSS data from 2008 through 2018 to summarize levels and changes in attitudes toward free expression for all six existing reference individuals. Second, I offer results from a three-armed experiment that compares “Muslim clergyman” to the two alternatives of “Islamic cleric” and “Islamic religious leader.” The experimental data were collected over the web in January and February of 2019 as part of the AmeriSpeak panel.

on the 2016 General Social Survey (GSS), two question-wording experiements were conducted testing variant versions of core GSS items on job satisfaction (SATJOB) and the co-residence of adult children and their parents (AGED). This report details the findings of these experiments.

Smith, Tom W.; Kim, Jibum

Surveys are conducted using many different modes (e.g. face-to-face, mail, telephone, Internet). Because different modes have different error structures, it is very important to understand the advanctages and disadvantages associated with each mode. In recent years there have been major changes in the mdoes typically utilized in surveys. In particular, there have been increases in the use of computers in data collection, self-administration, and mixed-mode designs. The implications of these and future changes are considered. 

This paper documents an update to the Erickson, Goldthorpe & Portocarero social class schema, first proposed in 1987. Due to the backcoding of the 2010 US Census Occupational Classification, it is now possible to treat all GSS cases according to the same occupational codes, which can then be linked to updated EGP codes. Validity is ascertained using the 2012 American Community Survey’s occupational classification. Please note that this methodological report also includes a .do file for adding EGP codes to a STATA GSS datafile, as well as an OCC10 to EGP crosswalk, included below with download links

GSS years: 1972-2016

http://gss.norc.org/Documents/other/occ10-to-egp-class-crosswalk.csv http://gss.norc.org/Documents/other/code-for-egp-crosswalk.do

Hout, Michael Smith, Tom W. Marsden, Peter V.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC

The 2012 GSS included a popular prestige rating (Smith and Son 2014). A sample of 1,001 individuals, first interviewed in 2008 and included in the GSS panel, rated 90 occupations each; a rotation of occupations among respondents resulted in ratings for 860 occupational titles, most of which could be assigned to one of the 840 codes in the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). This methodological report explains how we collected the ratings and converted them into prestige scores and a socioeconomic index for each of the 539 occupational categories of the Census Bureau's coding scheme now used in the GSS.

GSS years: 2012, 2014

Smith, Tom W. Laken, Faith Son, Jaesok

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1, 2014

Given the magnitude and seriousness of gun violence, it is important to have accurate and reliable information on the possession and use of firearms in the United States. This report examines one crucial element, the level of and trends in household and personal gun ownership. First, the report considers methodological issues concerning the measurement of gun ownership. Second, it examines trends in gun ownership. Third, it evaluates the nexus of these two factors, the impact of methodological issues on the measurement of trends gun ownership. Finally, it considers what ancillary trend data on crime, hunting, household size, and number of guns available suggest about trends in gun ownership.

GSS years: 1972-2014

Smith, Tom W. Son, Jaesok

GSS years: 2012

Smith, Tom W. Kim, Jibum

GSS years: N/A

Kim, Jibum Son, Jaesok Kwok, Peter K. Kang, Jeong-han Laken, Faith Daquilanea, Jodie Shin, Hee-Choon Smith, Tom W.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2012

Using the 40 years of the General Social Survey (GSS), we investigate the long-term trend and the correlates of family and personal income nonresponse. Family and personal income nonresponse has increased slightly by about 5 percentage points from 1974 to 2010 (9% to 13% in family income; 7% to 12% in personal income). While family income nonresponse was equivalently attributed to “Don’t Know” and “Refused,” personal income nonresponse was mainly attributed to “Refused.” We found very similar correlates of family and personal income nonresponse, such as being older, female, married, self employed, those not answering the number of earners, uncooperative respondents, people living in the East, and those surveyed in recent periods. In addition, based on the interviewer’s evaluation, uncooperative respondents are less likely to response “Don’t Know” than “Refused” and respondents with poor comprehension are more likely to respond “Don’t Know” than “Refused.” Our findings suggest that we need to distinguish “Refused” from “Don’t Know” if we aim to better understand income nonresponse and to consider paradata to evaluate the cognitive processing of income nonresponse.

GSS years: 1972-2012

Hout, Michael Hastings, Orestes P

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 6, 2012

We assess the reliability and stability of core items in the General Social Survey using Alwin’s (2007) implementation of Heise’s (1969) model. Of 265 core items examined we find mostly positive results. Eighty items (over 30 percent) have reliability coefficients greater than 0.85; another 84 (32 percent) have reliability coefficients between 0.70 and 0.85. Facts are generally more reliable than other items. Stability was slightly higher, overall, in the 2008-2010 period than the 2006-2008 period. The economic recession of 2007-09 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 altered the social context in ways that may have contributed to instability.

GSS years: 2006, 2008, 2010

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 5, 2011

GSS years: 2006, 2008

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 5, 2010

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 11, 2009

GSS years: 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2010

GSS years: 2006,2008

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC, 2009

GSS years: 2008

MR113 2006-2008 General Social Survey Panel Validation

Smith, Tom W. Sokolowski, John

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2008

GSS years: 2002,2008

Malhotra, Neil Krosnick, Jon A Haertel, Edward

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 8, 2007

Social scientists in many disciplines have used the GSS's ten-item Wordsum vocabulary test to study the causes and consequences of vocabulary knowledge and related constructs. In adding up the number of correct answers to yield a test score, researchers have implicitly assumed that the ten items all reflect a single, underlying construct and that each item deserves equal weight when generating the total score. In this paper, we report evidence suggesting that extracting the unique variance associated with each word and measuring the latent construct only with the variance shared among all indicators strengthens the validity of the index. We also report evidence suggesting that Wordsum could be improved by adding words of moderate difficulty to accompany the existing questions that are either quite easy or quite difficult. Previous studies that used Wordsum should be revisited in light of these findings, because their results might change when a more optimal analytic method is used.

GSS years: 1974-2004

Smith, Tom W. Kim, Seokho

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 4, 2007

The new Baylor Religion Survey (BRS) is an important addition to the available data on religion in contemporary America ('American Piety,' 2006). Few national surveys have included so many valuable questions on the religious background, beliefs, and behaviors of adult Americans. The BRS is a fruitful source for expanding our knowledge about religion and the initial analysis that accompanied the release of the data last Fall has already made a major contribution to the sociology of religion ('American Piety' 2006; 'American Piety 2005,' 2006; Dougherty, Johnson, and Polson, 2006; Dougherty, Johnson, and Polson, 2007; 'Losing My Religion,' 2006).

GSS years: 2006

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2007

Kim, Jibum Smith, Tom W. Kang, Jeong-han Sokolowski, John

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2006

GSS years: 1984-2002

GSS years: 1984-2004

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2005

Several probes were added to the 2004 GSS to see if the declining Protestant population was due to the data being hidden in Christian or Inter/non-denominational categories. Very few cases were found, but the 2006 GSS will attempt to resolve the status of several dozen cases.

GSS years: 1972-2004

The large rise in multiple ethnic mentions was due to the change in mode to CAPI. Although this change was noted, there was no significant change on the distribution of ethnicities.

GSS years: 2002,2004

Switching from a 4-category to 5-category health scale doesn't change explanatory power and would prohibit trends in these categories from being reliably estimated across scales. Changing from 4 to 5 also shifts distribution at the positive end, but not at the negative end.

NHIS, FQES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey II

Using CAPI (introduced in 2002) allows researchers to compare HEF variables and reconcile conflicting information while still in the field. Cleaning and consistency checks will be made of HEF variables to obtain more accurate data.

GSS years: 1980-2004

Hout, Michael

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2004

GSS years: 1972-2002

Kim, Jibum Smith,Tom W. Kim, Seokho Kang, Jeong-han Berktold, Jennifer

GSS years: 2000, 2002

Smith, Tom W. Michael, J. Michael

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2003

GSS years: 1984, 2000, 2002

GSS years: 2002

GSS years: 1988-2002

GSS years: 1972-2000

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 10, 2001

GSS years: 2001

Marsden, Peter V.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 6, 2001

Name generators, used measuring egocentric networks in surveys, are complex questions that make substantial demands on respondents and interviewers alike. They are therefore vulnerable to interviewer effects, which arise when interviewers administer questions differently in ways that affect responses-in particular, the number of names elicited. Van Tilburg (1998) found significant interviewer effects on network size in a study of elderly Dutch respondents; that study included an instrument with seven name generators, the complexity of which may have accentuated interviewer effects. This article examines a simpler single-generator elicitation instrument administered in the 1998 General Social Survey (GSS). Interviewer effects on network size as measured by this instrument are smaller than those found by Van Tilburg, but only modestly so. Variations in the network size of respondents within interviewer caseloads (estimated using a single-item "global" measure of network size and an independent sample of respondents) reduce but do not explain interviewer effects on the name generator measure. Interviewer differences remain significant after controls for between-interviewer differences in the sociodemographic composition of respondent pools. Further insight into the sources of interviewer effects may be obtained via monitoring respondent-interviewer interactions for differences in how name generators are administered. 

GSS years: 2000

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 7, 2001

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1999

GSS years: 1988-1998

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 12, 2002

GSS years: 1998

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1998

The relationship between educational attainment and age/cohort is curvilinear, and not negative as the historical trend might indicate, for two reasons: the advent of associate degrees and the time required to obtain graduate degrees. Control variables (for age/cohort) straighten out otherwise confounding relationships.

GSS years: 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996

ANES 1984-1991

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1997

GSS years: 1994, 1996

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2, 1997

GSS years: 1996

Smith, Tom W. Shin, Hee-Choon Xiaoxi, Tong

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2, 1996

There were few sample frame effects associated with NORC's shift from the 1980 to the 1990 Census. Also, design effects based on the 1990 sample frame are of the same nature and magnitude as indicated by previous research.

GSS years: 1993

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 12, 1995

GSS years: 1972-1994

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 6, 1995

This article reviews questions in the GSS asking a respondent's race or ethnicity and proposes several methods in which these measures could be refined.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1995

The GSS recently shortened the length of its core and, as a result, the context of many items changed. Few context effects were caused by these shifts.

GSS years: 1994

GSS years: 1972-1993

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 8, 1994

GSS years: 1975-1993

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 3, 1994

Response differences in two GSS and one ISSP spending scale were slight, except for spending on the environment, which showed a context effect. In all, the spending scales are generally answered in a consistent and meaningful manner.

GSS years: 1990

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1980

The 1980 General Social Survey and the American National Study by SRC are compared to determine house effects. The difference on frequency of don't know categories between the two surveys is the most significant house effect. Also, the difference in time of interview and training of interviewers causes variation in data.

GSS years: 1980

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1985

Studies of voting behavior and other political matters in the fifties developed a picture of the American electorate that was startlingly at odds with the basic assumption of a rational citizenry as formulated in classic democratic theory. In general, the low or defective levels of conceptualization, information, participation, attitude constraint, and consistency were seen as indicating a very underdeveloped level of political thought and weak or disorganized political attitudes. In particular, inconsistency in attitudes over time was interpreted as indicating an abundance of non-attitudes. In this paper, we will review the literature on non-attitudes. We will examine how the concept of non-attitudes compares with rival explanations of mass belief systems and evaluate the conceptual and evaluate the conceptual and empirical appropriateness of competing formulations. We will then consider the implications of these findings on survey design and analysis in general.

GSS years: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978

Schaeffer, Nora Cate

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1982

Variations in the wording of the child qualities items were examined in order to determine the degree of male bias present. This bias is present in both variations but to a lesser degree in the child item than the he item.

Objective measures of ethnicity and nationality may be inaccurate because substantial numbers of people do not know where their ancestors were born, have multiple nationalities, or do not adopt the ethnicity suggested by place of birth. Generally a combination of behavioral, natal, and subjective approaches is most effective, and even a simple subjective measure may be more effective than an objective one.

GSS years: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980

Conflicts found in the work supervision and self-employment items stem from: (1) borderline cases which include both elements, (2) answering the question for one's spouse rather than self, and (3) misinterpretation of the supervision question.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 12, 1993

Response differences in a GSS scale and the ISSP scales result from measurement differences and group descriptors. Differences in questions wording, in particular, concerning descriptors for the government, produced different responses for subjects suggesting that the two labels were connoting different meanings.

GSS years: 1991

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 7, 1993

John Brehm incorrectly weighted the data when comparing the CPS and the GSS. This article shows that the GSS, when properly weighted, is very similar to the CPS in all demographics except for gender (See also Brehm, 324).

GSS years: 1978-1988

CPS 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988; NES

Changes in the alignment of categories or the shift in scale can have significant response effects for surveys. The physical layout of surveys can also affect interviewers and hence data quality negatively through confusing skip patterns or the amount of physical space available corresponding to how much open ended detail is recorded.

ISSP 1987; Gallup 1954; Wirthlin; Gordon Black; ORC; Yankelovich and Hart-Tetter 1990; NORC 1954

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1992

GSS years: 1972-1991

Respondents with non-attitudes and middle-of-the-road attitudes are attracted to the +1 rather than the -1 response category on a ten-point scalometer. Endpoints, especially the negative endpoint, disproportionately attract responses. Changes in the scalometer, such as including 0 as a midpoint and pointing out all ten or eleven response categories, might cause fewer response effects and more accurate ratings.

GSS years: 1974-1991

Gallup 1953-1973

This article compares the differences in the respondents to the 1991 GSS and the 1992 reinterview, and describes three differences. First, respondents to the reinterview were more upscale than the original interviewees. Second, non-response was higher among those who were uncooperative in the first interview. Third, non-response was higher among non-voters.

Nakao, Keiko Treas, Judith

Following Duncan's procedures new socioeconomic indexes are calculated based on the GSS/NORC study of occupational prestige.

GSS years: 1989

Census 1980

This article describes the addition of 93 variables from the HEF for all full-probability surveys from 1975-1992.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1991

Ethno-religious composition, political composition, density, and composition of a network by friends or co-members of organizations are measured with relatively high reliability, and some, such as sex composition, remain problematic, even when the number of alters grows quite large. The sensitivity of reliability estimates to differences in instrument design is examined using design variations in the surveys studied.

GSS years: 1985, 1987, 1988

Northern California Community Study 1977-1978

Missing information is a greater problem for income than for any other demographic and non-response has increased over time. However, non-response in the GSS is less than in many other studies

Census 1960, 1970; CPS 1973; Income Survey Development Program 1978; Survey Income and Program Participation 1983; NES 1988; ISSP 1989

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1990

The authors construct a new prestige scale for the 1980 Census Occupational classification. Using 1989 GSS data, 740 occupations were ranked according to social prestige.

Nakao, Keiko Hodge, Robert W. Treas, Judith

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 10, 1990

Prestige scores for all occupations developed from the national surveys in the 1960's have been widely used by researchers in the social sciences. The change in the 1980 Census classification of occupations necessitates updating the prestige scale accordingly. New scores can be obtained either by reworking the old scores or by collecting new data. In this paper, we argue for the latter choice based on the methodological, substantive, and theoretical considerations. The plan to collect occupational assessments from a nationally representative sample of 1500 Americans in the 1989 NORC General Social Survey will also be outlined.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 9, 1990

GSS years: 1988, 1989

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 12, 1989

Missing data on father's occupation may have a small impact on intergenerational comparisons with intergenerational associations weaker for missing data. Possible corrections for missing data may include using mother's and spouse's work information.

GSS years: 1972-1988

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 9, 1989

Difficulty in studying order effects stems from the number of potential causal influences, competing explanations, interaction effects with question type, question specificity, question vagueness, question centrality, response type, history, administration, conflicting attitudes, and other effects. Promising solutions include split ballots, think aloud procedures, follow-up questions, probes on other dimensions, and various experimental designs.

GSS years: 1976, 1978, 1980

SRC 1979-80; NORC 1987; Greater Cincinnati Surveys 1983-84; DAS 1971

Though most of the data on sexual behavior and attitudes from the 1988 and 1989 GSS appear valid and reliable, caution still needs to be use when examining the 1988 responses of male homosexuals and the gender gap in reported number of partners. (See also No. 2954??)

GSS years: 1988, 1989, 1990

Ligon, Ethan

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1989

Two new GSS income measures (REALINC and RINCOME) constructed from current GSS variables for household and respondent income correct for changes in the price level across years.

BLS 1983; CPS 1980

Alwin, Duane F.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2, 1989

In this paper I discuss several of the difficulties involved in estimating the reliability of survey measurement. Reliability is defined on the basis of classical true-score theory, as the correlational consistency of multiple measures of the same construct, net of true change. This concept is presented within the framework of a theoretical discussion of the sources of error in survey data and the design requirements for separating response variation into components representing such response consistency and measurement errors. Discussion focuses on the potential sources of random and nonrandom errors, including "invalidity" of measurement, the term frequently used to refer to components of method variance. Problems with the estimation of these components are enumerated and discussed with respect to both cross-sectional and panel designs. Empirical examples are given of the estimation of the quantities of interest, which are the basis of a discussion of the interpretational difficulties encountered in reliability estimation. Data are drawn from the ISR's Quality of Life surveys, the National Election Studies and the NORC's General Social Surveys. The general conclusion is that both crosssectional and panel estimates of measurement reliability are desirable, but for the purposes of isolating the random component of error, panel designs are probably the most advantageous. 

GSS years: 1973, 1974

Alwin, Duane F. Krosnick, Jon A.

GSS years: 1973 -1988

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 12, 1988

Open ended coding errors for occupation are frequent, but fortunately mistakes do not differ from correct coding by much, and thus do not greatly affect analysis. More attention is needed in training coders and devising coding schemes.

GSS years: 1988

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 11, 1988

For the sexual behavior items on the 1988 GSS, there is little evidence of non-response bias and attitudes and behaviors appear somewhat consistent. Though reports of sexless marriages can reasonably be explained, the data on number of partners and male homosexuals is questionable. (See also No. 2953??)

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 9, 1988

By the recoding of various demographics, GSS respondents can be classified according to the government definition of poverty.

Changes in GSS measurement procedures have distorted some trends in variables across time. These effects are identified, and in cases of extreme distortion, corrections are suggested.

Gallup 1976

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 8, 1988

Rasinski, Kenneth A

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 5, 1988

Past attempts at explaining the effect of question wording on responses to survey questions have stressed the ability of question wording to persuade and influence the respondent, resulting in attitude change. This paper promotes an alternative view, which is that even small changes in wording often shift the meaning of the question and thus affect the way the respondent things about the issue. Analyses of question wording experiments on the 1984, 1985, and 1986 General Social Surveys were conducted to examine the effect of wording changes on public support for various types of government spending. Consistent wording effects were found across the three years. An examination of the effects of wording changes and of their interaction with respondent individual differences led to two conclusions: (1) even minor wording changes can alter the meaning of a survey question, and (2), this effect is not limited to individuals with lower levels of education or with less stable attitudes

GSS years: 1984, 1985, 1986

Schuman, Howard Scott, Jacqueline

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 5, 1989

Two split-ballot experiments, one on DK filtering and one on agreeing response set, were included in the GSS in 1974 and replicated in 1982. Response effects occurred in each experiment in 1974 and were generally replicated in 1982, but the effects do not interact with time. 

GSS years: 1972, 1982

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 2, 1988

The GSS's switch from a rotation to a split ballot design offers advantages of maintaining one year intervals for variables, ease in judging rate of change in items, and applying econometric time series analysis and testing for context effects. Disadvantages include more sampling variability, complications in representation of time in analysis, and the possibility of introducing new context effects.

GSS years: 1984

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 8, 1987

GSS years: 1973-1987

Test/retest consistency varies by attributes of the respondent, and this variation is largely a function of reliability differentials between groups.

GSS years: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1978

The Commission's analysis of public opinion is methodologically unsound and therefore substantively suspect.

GSS years: 1972-1986

Gallup 1977, 1985; Yankelovich 1975 1976 1977 1982; Commission on Obscenity and Pornography 1970; Newsweek/Gallup 1985

Duncan, Greg J. Groskind, Fred

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 5, 1987

Low benefit responses to the 1986 Welfare Vignette supplement are probably not due to misunderstanding the questions. It is also a mistake to assume that respondent-designated incomes were intended to be net benefits.

GSS years: 1986

Krosnick, Jon A. Alwin, Duane F.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 3, 1987

Respondents often choose merely satisfactory answers to survey questions when the cognitive and motivational demands of choosing optimal answers are high. Satisficing is more prevalent among people with less cognitive sophistication, though it is no more prevalent among people for whom the topic of a question is low in salience and/or personal importance.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1986

Disinterest, lack of reading ability, difficulty in judgment, and comprehension lead to nonresponse to the welfare vignettes. Bias was small and related to nonresponse associated variables. Respondents also made marking mistakes. Despite these problems, the vignettes worked well with a small amount of error.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1987

This paper discusses the use of survey supplements, factors influencing supplement attrition and nonresponse bias, and attrition and nonresponse bias on the 1985 ISSP Supplement. Overall supplement attrition was moderate and not random. Attrition was higher among those who are politically uninterested and less educated, less likely to discuss problems and socialize with others, Northeasterners, isolationists, and dislike foreign countries.

GSS years: 1984, 1985

OCG I & II 1962, 1973; BSA 1983-1985; Opinion and ISV 1976; Civil Liberties Survey 1978; NORC 1964

Burt, Ronald S.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 6, 1987

GSS years: 1985

Burt, Ronald S. Marsden, Peter V. Rossi, Peter H.

Building on the GSS network items, the authors propose several changes and improvements which could be used to make a standard set of network items for survey research. This set would be efficient, reliable, and valid.

DAS 1966; Northern California Communities Study 1977

Burt, Ronald S. Guilarte, Miguel G.

The idea of structural balance is used to suggest quantitative intervals between relationship strength response categories in the GSS network data. In contrast to an assumption of equal intervals between the categories of relationship strength, the intervals appear quite uneven.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 6, 1986

The people identified as important discussion partners in the GSS network data were cited in order of strength of relationship with respondent: the first cited person having the strongest relation, the second having the next strongest, and so on. Order effects on closeness and contact frequency are described in the context of network size and relation content.

Smith, Tom W. Peterson, Bruce L.

An unintended overlap between respondent selection and form assignment procedures in GSS surveys from 1978 to 1985 created an association between form and age order in some households. This led to an association between form and various variables linked to age order. A weight was developed to compensate for the assignment bias and achieve random distribution of affected variables across forms.

GSS years: 1973-1985

Overall proxy reports for spouses were as accurate as self-reports, probably because attributes measured (religion education, occupation, etc.) were major, basic demographics. Significantly higher levels of non-response were found for proxy reports, but a level of missing data was nevertheless negligible.

GSS years: 1972-1978, 1980, 1982-1985

Alteration of the GSS content by the addition or deletion of items, by the switching of items from permanent to rotating status, or by switching items from one rotation to another hampers keeping measurement conditions constant and therefore increases the possibility that true change will be confounded with measurement effects.

GSS years: 1972-1985

The term welfare consistently produces more negative evaluations than does the term poor, illustrating the major impact different words can have on response patterns.

SRC 1972, 1974, 1976, 1982; MAP 1968, 1982; Harris 1972 1976; Gallup 1976; Yankelovich

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1984

This is an argument for obtaining network data in the General Social Survey.

Peterson, Bruce L.

This report on the 1984 GSS experiment comparing the effect of varying the number of response categories, concludes that the inter-item correlations are not appreciably different in the seven-point version of the confidence question than in the traditional three-point item.

The report is a preliminary analysis of eight methodological experiments and adaptations in the 1984 General Social Survey: New Denominational codes; intra-item order effects, child qualities; sex of child, child qualities; spend priorities; confidence variation in response categories; bible fundamentalism, two trends; Images of God, two scales; and order effect of grace.

GSS years: 1972-1984

Gallup; ANES; NORC

Dempsey, Glenn R.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 9, 1984

The purpose of these two experiments on the 1983 GSS was to determine whether U.S. and European scaling techniques could measure political ideology and social status in the U.S. in similar ways. POLVIEWS tends to have stronger correlations with political and social attitudes than does POLVIEWX (European scale). CLASS, the standard GSS question also correlates higher than the European counterpart RANK.

GSS years: 1972-1982

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1983

When question order was reversed so that questions on valued qualities of children came before those on abortion, support for abortion decreased. Although a split ballot in 1983 failed to confirm the effect of altered question order, that may be the result of lower overall support of abortion.

GSS years: 1977, 1978, 1980, 1983

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 4, 1983

Ranking and rating techniques for measuring parental socialization values are found to be similar with respect to ordering aggregate preferences. However, ranked measures account for appreciably more variance in the latent variable, self-direction versus conformity.

Durall 1946; Schuman and Presser, 1981

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 10, 1984

GSS years: 1980, 1982

Results from the 1982 GSS experiment show that non-affective dimensions such as importance, information, firmness, and open-ended questions added to issues like support/opposition to the ERA and abortion, and can discriminate the attitude constraint between two related measures.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 6, 1983

Clustering scale items together increases inter-item correlations, but has no clear impact between the scale and independent variables.

GSS years: 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982

GSS years: 1972, 1973, 1982

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 7, 1982

Voter turnout and candidate voted for are difficult variables to reliably measure. Voting is consistently over-reported and votes for winners are usually exaggerated.

ANES 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980; CPS 1968 1972, 1976, 1980

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 5, 1982

Order-effects are an ill-known phenomenon in survey research. There are many different types with distinct causes. Conditional order effects in which the variation occurs mostly or completely among those giving a particular response to the antecedent question are examined in depth.

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1981

Respondents who contradict themselves on abortion items actually disapprove of abortion. The approving response to the general item is best considered an error in grasping the connection between the general and the situational items.

GSS years: 1977, 1978, 1980

Ethnicity is the most difficult of all background variables to measure, as language, religion, race, nationality and culture must be pieced together. About one quarter of Americans are either over- or under-identifiers of their ancestors. The ability of ethnicity to explain attitudes drops with immigrant generation, though it remains significant even after several generations.

SRC 1978; ANES 1978; Census of Canada 1971

In general, item nonresponse is higher for the less educated. The reverse is true however on obscure and fictive questions without filters. With filters, the obscure and fictive questions show no association between item nonresponse and education.

ANES 1956, 1958, 1960, 1980

Various methods of measuring the impact of non-response bias on survey estimates are examined. It is concluded that there is no simple, general, or accurate way of measuring it. Further research is encouraged.

There is an apparent contradiction between the disapproving responses to the general hitting question and the more specific subquestions. This contradiction is due in part to differences in education and achievement.

GSS years: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1979

* Please note there is a version updated in 2009 (MR009a). The problem of underrepresentation of males on the GSS reflects the nonresponse tendency of males, possibly exacerbated by female interviewers. Surveys using full probability sampling generally have an underrepresentation of males.

Census 1970, 1972-78; CPS 1975-77; CNS 1973-74; ANES 1972-78

Smith, Tom W. Bruce, C. Stephenson

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1979.

The authors explain various techniques to determine measurement error in opinion surveys. Focusing on test/retest experiments, they conclude that the problems of distinguishing measurement error from true change are sufficiently fundamental and sufficiently complex that they must be attacked with various techniques.

Stephenson, C. Bruce

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 4, 1979.

Probability sampling with quotas (PSQ) overrepresents large households. Both PSQ and full probability sampling (FP) underrepresent people from large households. Also, PSQ underrepresents men who are working full-time. Finally, difficult respondents may be underrepresented more seriously in the PSQ sample. However, FP underrepresents men and urbanites.

GSS years: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 3, 1980.

Ethnicity is a difficult attribute to measure. It can be determined for about 78 percent of all non-blacks when measured subjectively and for about 85 percent when determined subjectively and natally. A lack of ethnic affiliation is related to being a member of the old stock, host culture; having low education and social standing; and poor transmission of family information between generations.

GSS years: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977

CPS 1972; SRC 1972, 1974, 1978

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1978.

This report examines response rates of NORC and SRC and finds that on the GSS the causes of non-response are explicit refusals, unavailable, and a small residual group of sick or otherwise uninterviewable people. The mixture of non-responses appears to differ between the GSS's and SRC's surveys, although total response rates are nearly identical.

SRC 1972-78

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 4, 1984.

Review of the GSS size of place codes resolved suspected sampling frame artifact but uncovered miscoded size of place variables. Fortunately, the magnitude of the misclassifications is minimal.

Both full probability and block-quota sampling techniques overrepresent people from small households. This bias can be eliminated by weighting the number of eligible respondents per household. The distortions caused by this bias fortunately appear to be small.

While house effects are not an insurmountable and pervasive survey problem, they do affect survey response particularly in the area of the don't know response level.

Stouffer 1954; NORC 1960; Gallup 1971-76 (14); Roper 1971, 1973; SRC 1972, 1974-76

Christian, Leah; Paddock, Susan; Blumerman, Lisa; Bautista, Rene; Davern, Michael

Methodological Report, Chicago, NORC , 1981.

Differences in survey procedures, i.e., format, wording placement, and order, artificially increase the variation of responses to questions on institutional confidence. Also, the concept of confidence is somewhat vague and allows for fluctuations that complicate an analysis of opinions on confidence. All in all, much of the inter- and intra-survey changes in trends are true fluctuations.

1155 E 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637

GSS@norc.org

Supported by

• Terms and Conditions

© Copyright 2024 NORC at the University of Chicago