Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on August 25, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 20, 2023.

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

It should include:

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

  • Academic style
  • Vague sentences
  • Style consistency

See an example

research methods in report writing

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

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

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

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

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

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

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

Option 2: Start with your “why”

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

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

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

Quantitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Information bias
  • Omitted variable bias
  • Regression to the mean
  • Survivorship bias
  • Undercoverage bias
  • Sampling bias

Qualitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Hawthorne effect
  • Observer bias
  • The placebo effect
  • Response bias and Nonresponse bias
  • The Pygmalion effect
  • Recall bias
  • Social desirability bias
  • Self-selection bias

Mixed methods

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

research methods in report writing

Try for free

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

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

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

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

Specific methods might include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

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

2. Cite relevant sources

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

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

3. Write for your audience

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

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

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.

  • Normal distribution
  • Measures of central tendency
  • Chi square tests
  • Confidence interval
  • Quartiles & Quantiles

Methodology

  • Cluster sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Thematic analysis
  • Cohort study
  • Peer review
  • Ethnography

Research bias

  • Implicit bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Conformity bias
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Availability heuristic
  • Attrition bias

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.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

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

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

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

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

  • Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
  • Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

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.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, what is your plagiarism score.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

  • PLOS Biology
  • PLOS Climate
  • PLOS Complex Systems
  • PLOS Computational Biology
  • PLOS Digital Health
  • PLOS Genetics
  • PLOS Global Public Health
  • PLOS Medicine
  • PLOS Mental Health
  • PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • PLOS Pathogens
  • PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
  • PLOS Collections
  • How to Write Your Methods

research methods in report writing

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

research methods in report writing

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

  • Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
  • Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
  • Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
  • Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
  • What participants did you decide to exclude? 
  • What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

research methods in report writing

  • Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
  • Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
  • Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
  • Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
  • Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
  • Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
  • Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

research methods in report writing

Don’t

  • Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
  • Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
  • Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
  • How to Write a Great Title
  • How to Write an Abstract
  • How to Report Statistics
  • How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
  • How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

  • Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Research Method

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

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

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Scope of the Research

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Research Problem

Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

  • 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

SciSpace Resources

Here's What You Need to Understand About Research Methodology

Deeptanshu D

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.

Analyze and understand research methodologies faster with SciSpace Copilot

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.

research methods in report writing

You might also like

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

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

Sumalatha G

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Nikhil Seethi

Using AI for research: A beginner’s guide

Shubham Dogra

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

RMIT University Library - Learning Lab

  • 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

Logo for M Libraries Publishing

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

11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning objectives.

  • Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
  • Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a title page . The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

  • Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
  • Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
  • Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
  • Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

It’s Soooo Cute!

How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .

  • “Let’s Get Serious: Communicating Commitment in Romantic Relationships”
  • “Through the Looking Glass Clearly: Accuracy and Assumed Similarity in Well-Adjusted Individuals’ First Impressions”
  • “Don’t Hide Your Happiness! Positive Emotion Dissociation, Social Connectedness, and Psychological Functioning”
  • “Forbidden Fruit: Inattention to Attractive Alternatives Provokes Implicit Relationship Reactance”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The abstract is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The introduction begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humorous anecdote (Jacoby, 1999).

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (p. 3).

Although both humor and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).
Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.
An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).
We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions (p. 378).

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centered on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 “Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method” shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on.

The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Some journals now make the raw data available online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

  • Remind the reader of the research question.
  • Give the answer to the research question in words.
  • Present the relevant statistics.
  • Qualify the answer if necessary.
  • Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

  • Summary of the research
  • Theoretical implications
  • Practical implications
  • Limitations
  • Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how can they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What new research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968), for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centered at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendixes, Tables, and Figures

Appendixes, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendixes come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figure 11.2 “Title Page and Abstract” , Figure 11.3 “Introduction and Method” , Figure 11.4 “Results and Discussion” , and Figure 11.5 “References and Figure” show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract

Title Page and Abstract

This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method

Introduction and Method

Note that the introduction is headed with the full title, and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.

Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion

Results and Discussion

The discussion begins immediately after the results section ends.

Figure 11.5 References and Figure

References and Figure

If there were appendixes or tables, they would come before the figure.

Writing up a Research Report

  • Stefan Hunziker 3 &
  • Michael Blankenagel 3  
  • First Online: 04 January 2024

200 Accesses

A research report is one big argument about how and why you came up with your conclusions. To make it a convincing argument, a typical guiding structure has developed. In the different chapters, there are distinct issues that need to be addressed to explain to the reader why your conclusions are valid. The governing principle for writing the report is full disclosure: to explain everything and ensure replicability by another researcher.

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

Buying options

  • 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

Barros, L. O. (2016). The only academic phrasebook you’ll ever need . Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Google Scholar  

Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics. The reality enigma . SAGE.

Field, A. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.

Früh, M., Keimer, I., & Blankenagel, M. (2019). The impact of Balanced Scorecard excellence on shareholder returns. IFZ Working Paper No. 0003/2019. https://zenodo.org/record/2571603#.YMDUafkzZaQ . Accessed: 9 June 2021.

Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ, Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug, Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Writing up a Research Report. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_4

Published : 04 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-42738-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-42739-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (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

Uncomplicated Reviews of Educational Research Methods

  • Writing a Research Report

.pdf version of this page

This review covers the basic elements of a research report. This is a general guide for what you will see in journal articles or dissertations. This format assumes a mixed methods study, but you can leave out either quantitative or qualitative sections if you only used a single methodology.

This review is divided into sections for easy reference. There are five MAJOR parts of a Research Report:

1.    Introduction 2.    Review of Literature 3.    Methods 4.    Results 5.    Discussion

As a general guide, the Introduction, Review of Literature, and Methods should be about 1/3 of your paper, Discussion 1/3, then Results 1/3.

Section 1 : Cover Sheet (APA format cover sheet) optional, if required.

Section 2: Abstract (a basic summary of the report, including sample, treatment, design, results, and implications) (≤ 150 words) optional, if required.

Section 3 : Introduction (1-3 paragraphs) •    Basic introduction •    Supportive statistics (can be from periodicals) •    Statement of Purpose •    Statement of Significance

Section 4 : Research question(s) or hypotheses •    An overall research question (optional) •    A quantitative-based (hypotheses) •    A qualitative-based (research questions) Note: You will generally have more than one, especially if using hypotheses.

Section 5: Review of Literature ▪    Should be organized by subheadings ▪    Should adequately support your study using supporting, related, and/or refuting evidence ▪    Is a synthesis, not a collection of individual summaries

Section 6: Methods ▪    Procedure: Describe data gathering or participant recruitment, including IRB approval ▪    Sample: Describe the sample or dataset, including basic demographics ▪    Setting: Describe the setting, if applicable (generally only in qualitative designs) ▪    Treatment: If applicable, describe, in detail, how you implemented the treatment ▪    Instrument: Describe, in detail, how you implemented the instrument; Describe the reliability and validity associated with the instrument ▪    Data Analysis: Describe type of procedure (t-test, interviews, etc.) and software (if used)

Section 7: Results ▪    Restate Research Question 1 (Quantitative) ▪    Describe results ▪    Restate Research Question 2 (Qualitative) ▪    Describe results

Section 8: Discussion ▪    Restate Overall Research Question ▪    Describe how the results, when taken together, answer the overall question ▪    ***Describe how the results confirm or contrast the literature you reviewed

Section 9: Recommendations (if applicable, generally related to practice)

Section 10: Limitations ▪    Discuss, in several sentences, the limitations of this study. ▪    Research Design (overall, then info about the limitations of each separately) ▪    Sample ▪    Instrument/s ▪    Other limitations

Section 11: Conclusion (A brief closing summary)

Section 12: References (APA format)

Share this:

About research rundowns.

Research Rundowns was made possible by support from the Dewar College of Education at Valdosta State University .

  • Experimental Design
  • What is Educational Research?
  • Writing Research Questions
  • Mixed Methods Research Designs
  • Qualitative Coding & Analysis
  • Qualitative Research Design
  • Correlation
  • Effect Size
  • Instrument, Validity, Reliability
  • Mean & Standard Deviation
  • Significance Testing (t-tests)
  • Steps 1-4: Finding Research
  • Steps 5-6: Analyzing & Organizing
  • Steps 7-9: Citing & Writing

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

' src=

  • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
  • Copy shortlink
  • Report this content
  • View post in Reader
  • Manage subscriptions
  • Collapse this bar

Logo for Open Library Publishing Platform

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

49 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning objectives.

  • Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
  • Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a title page . The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

  • Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
  • Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
  • Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
  • Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

It’s  Soooo  Cute!  How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

  • “Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
  • “Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
  • “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
  • “Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
  • “Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
  • “How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The abstract is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word  Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The introduction begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that they enjoy smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humorous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humor and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the  literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the  balance  of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to  ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question and hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The  method section  is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centered on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on. The materials subsection is also a good place to refer to the reliability and/or validity of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items and that they accurately measure what they are intended to measure.

The  results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Many journals encourage the open sharing of raw data online, and some now require open data and materials before publication.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) [3] suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

  • Remind the reader of the research question.
  • Give the answer to the research question in words.
  • Present the relevant statistics.
  • Qualify the answer if necessary.
  • Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

  • Summary of the research
  • Theoretical implications
  • Practical implications
  • Limitations
  • Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how  can  they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they  would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What  new  research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end by returning to the problem or issue introduced in your opening paragraph and clearly stating how your research has addressed that issue or problem.

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centered at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to display graphs, illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract. This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

  • Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist  (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
  • Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵
  • Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.),  The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist  (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
  • Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵
  • Define non-experimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
  • Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct non-experimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable. Rather than manipulating an independent variable, researchers conducting non-experimental research simply measure variables as they naturally occur (in the lab or real world).

Most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, non-experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability to make causal conclusions does not mean that non-experimental research is less important than experimental research. It is simply used in cases where experimental research is not able to be carried out.

When to Use Non-Experimental Research

As we saw in the last chapter , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-experimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many times in which non-experimental research is preferred, including when:

  • the research question or hypothesis relates to a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., how accurate are people’s first impressions?).
  • the research question pertains to a non-causal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
  • the research question is about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions for practical or ethical reasons (e.g., does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
  • the research question is broad and exploratory, or is about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., what is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. Recall the three goals of science are to describe, to predict, and to explain. If the goal is to explain and the research question pertains to causal relationships, then the experimental approach is typically preferred. If the goal is to describe or to predict, a non-experimental approach is appropriate. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, in Milgram's original (non-experimental) obedience study, he was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. However,  Milgram subsequently conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [1] .

Types of Non-Experimental Research

Non-experimental research falls into two broad categories: correlational research and observational research. 

The most common type of non-experimental research conducted in psychology is correlational research. Correlational research is considered non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable. More specifically, in correlational research , the researcher measures two variables with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. As an example, a researcher interested in the relationship between self-esteem and school achievement could collect data on students' self-esteem and their GPAs to see if the two variables are statistically related.

Observational research  is non-experimental because it focuses on making observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything. Milgram’s original obedience study was non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of observational research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the researchers asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories).

Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal, and Cross-Sequential Studies

When psychologists wish to study change over time (for example, when developmental psychologists wish to study aging) they usually take one of three non-experimental approaches: cross-sectional, longitudinal, or cross-sequential. Cross-sectional studies involve comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people (e.g., children at different stages of development). What makes this approach non-experimental is that there is no manipulation of an independent variable and no random assignment of participants to groups. Using this design, developmental psychologists compare groups of people of different ages (e.g., young adults spanning from 18-25 years of age versus older adults spanning 60-75 years of age) on various dependent variables (e.g., memory, depression, life satisfaction). Of course, the primary limitation of using this design to study the effects of aging is that differences between the groups other than age may account for differences in the dependent variable. For instance, differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from (a cohort effect ) rather than a direct effect of age. For this reason, longitudinal studies , in which one group of people is followed over time as they age, offer a superior means of studying the effects of aging. However, longitudinal studies are by definition more time consuming and so require a much greater investment on the part of the researcher and the participants. A third approach, known as cross-sequential studies , combines elements of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Rather than measuring differences between people in different age groups or following the same people over a long period of time, researchers adopting this approach choose a smaller period of time during which they follow people in different age groups. For example, they might measure changes over a ten year period among participants who at the start of the study fall into the following age groups: 20 years old, 30 years old, 40 years old, 50 years old, and 60 years old. This design is advantageous because the researcher reaps the immediate benefits of being able to compare the age groups after the first assessment. Further, by following the different age groups over time they can subsequently determine whether the original differences they found across the age groups are due to true age effects or cohort effects.

The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. But as you will learn in this chapter, many observational research studies are more qualitative in nature. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s observational study of the experience of people in psychiatric wards was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semi-public room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256) [2] . Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 6.1 shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (correlational) research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest in internal validity because the use of manipulation (of the independent variable) and control (of extraneous variables) help to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Non-experimental (correlational) research is lowest in internal validity because these designs fail to use manipulation or control. Quasi-experimental research (which will be described in more detail in a subsequent chapter) falls in the middle because it contains some, but not all, of the features of a true experiment. For instance, it may fail to use random assignment to assign participants to groups or fail to use counterbalancing to control for potential order effects. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an anti-bullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” While a comparison is being made with a control condition, the inability to randomly assign children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying (e.g., there may be a selection effect).

Figure 7.1 Internal Validity of Correlational, Quasi-Experimental, and Experimental Studies. Experiments are generally high in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlational studies lower still.

Notice also in  Figure 6.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational (non-experimental) studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in Chapter 5.

  • Describe several strategies for recruiting participants for an experiment.
  • Explain why it is important to standardize the procedure of an experiment and several ways to do this.
  • Explain what pilot testing is and why it is important.

The information presented so far in this chapter is enough to design a basic experiment. When it comes time to conduct that experiment, however, several additional practical issues arise. In this section, we consider some of these issues and how to deal with them. Much of this information applies to non-experimental studies as well as experimental ones.

Recruiting Participants

Of course, at the start of any research project, you should be thinking about how you will obtain your participants. Unless you have access to people with schizophrenia or incarcerated juvenile offenders, for example, then there is no point designing a study that focuses on these populations. But even if you plan to use a convenience sample, you will have to recruit participants for your study.

There are several approaches to recruiting participants. One is to use participants from a formal  subject pool —an established group of people who have agreed to be contacted about participating in research studies. For example, at many colleges and universities, there is a subject pool consisting of students enrolled in introductory psychology courses who must participate in a certain number of studies to meet a course requirement. Researchers post descriptions of their studies and students sign up to participate, usually via an online system. Participants who are not in subject pools can also be recruited by posting or publishing advertisements or making personal appeals to groups that represent the population of interest. For example, a researcher interested in studying older adults could arrange to speak at a meeting of the residents at a retirement community to explain the study and ask for volunteers.

image

The Volunteer Subject

Even if the participants in a study receive compensation in the form of course credit, a small amount of money, or a chance at being treated for a psychological problem, they are still essentially volunteers. This is worth considering because people who volunteer to participate in psychological research have been shown to differ in predictable ways from those who do not volunteer. Specifically, there is good evidence that on average, volunteers have the following characteristics compared with non-volunteers (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1976) [3] :

  • They are more interested in the topic of the research.
  • They are more educated.
  • They have a greater need for approval.
  • They have higher IQ.
  • They are more sociable.
  • They are higher in social class.

This difference can be an issue of external validity if there is a reason to believe that participants with these characteristics are likely to behave differently than the general population. For example, in testing different methods of persuading people, a rational argument might work better on volunteers than it does on the general population because of their generally higher educational level and IQ.

In many field experiments, the task is not recruiting participants but selecting them. For example, researchers Nicolas Guéguen and Marie-Agnès de Gail conducted a field experiment on the effect of being smiled at on helping, in which the participants were shoppers at a supermarket. A confederate walking down a stairway gazed directly at a shopper walking up the stairway and either smiled or did not smile. Shortly afterward, the shopper encountered another confederate, who dropped some computer diskettes on the ground. The dependent variable was whether or not the shopper stopped to help pick up the diskettes (Guéguen & de Gail, 2003) [4] . There are two aspects of this study that are worth addressing here. First, n otice that these participants were not “recruited,” which means that the IRB would have taken care to ensure that dispensing with informed consent in this case was acceptable (e.g., the situation would not have been expected to cause any harm and the study was conducted in the context of people’s ordinary activities). Second, even though informed consent was not necessary, the researchers still had to select participants from among all the shoppers taking the stairs that day. I t is extremely important that this kind of selection be done according to a well-defined set of rules that are established before the data collection begins and can be explained clearly afterward. In this case, with each trip down the stairs, the confederate was instructed to gaze at the first person he encountered who appeared to be between the ages of 20 and 50. Only if the person gazed back did they become a participant in the study. The point of having a well-defined selection rule is to avoid bias in the selection of participants. For example, if the confederate was free to choose which shoppers he would gaze at, he might choose friendly-looking shoppers when he was set to smile and unfriendly-looking ones when he was not set to smile. As we will see shortly, such biases can be entirely unintentional.

Standardizing the Procedure

It is surprisingly easy to introduce extraneous variables during the procedure. For example, the same experimenter might give clear instructions to one participant but vague instructions to another. Or one experimenter might greet participants warmly while another barely makes eye contact with them. To the extent that such variables affect participants’ behavior, they add noise to the data and make the effect of the independent variable more difficult to detect. If they vary systematically across conditions, they become confounding variables and provide alternative explanations for the results. For example, if participants in a treatment group are tested by a warm and friendly experimenter and participants in a control group are tested by a cold and unfriendly one, then what appears to be an effect of the treatment might actually be an effect of experimenter demeanor. When there are multiple experimenters, the possibility of introducing extraneous variables is even greater, but is often necessary for practical reasons.

Experimenter’s Sex as an Extraneous Variable

It is well known that whether research participants are male or female can affect the results of a study. But what about whether the  experimenter  is male or female? There is plenty of evidence that this matters too. Male and female experimenters have slightly different ways of interacting with their participants, and of course, participants also respond differently to male and female experimenters (Rosenthal, 1976) [5] .

For example, in a recent study on pain perception, participants immersed their hands in icy water for as long as they could (Ibolya, Brake, & Voss, 2004) [6] . Male participants tolerated the pain longer when the experimenter was a woman, and female participants tolerated it longer when the experimenter was a man.

Researcher Robert Rosenthal has spent much of his career showing that this kind of unintended variation in the procedure does, in fact, affect participants’ behavior. Furthermore, one important source of such variation is the experimenter’s expectations about how participants “should” behave in the experiment. This outcome is referred to as an  experimenter expectancy effect  (Rosenthal, 1976) [7] . For example, if an experimenter expects participants in a treatment group to perform better on a task than participants in a control group, then they might unintentionally give the treatment group participants clearer instructions or more encouragement or allow them more time to complete the task. In a striking example, Rosenthal and Kermit Fode had several students in a laboratory course in psychology train rats to run through a maze. Although the rats were genetically similar, some of the students were told that they were working with “maze-bright” rats that had been bred to be good learners, and other students were told that they were working with “maze-dull” rats that had been bred to be poor learners. Sure enough, over five days of training, the “maze-bright” rats made more correct responses, made the correct response more quickly, and improved more steadily than the “maze-dull” rats (Rosenthal & Fode, 1963) [8] . Clearly, it had to have been the students’ expectations about how the rats would perform that made the difference. But how? Some clues come from data gathered at the end of the study, which showed that students who expected their rats to learn quickly felt more positively about their animals and reported behaving toward them in a more friendly manner (e.g., handling them more).

The way to minimize unintended variation in the procedure is to standardize it as much as possible so that it is carried out in the same way for all participants regardless of the condition they are in. Here are several ways to do this:

  • Create a written protocol that specifies everything that the experimenters are to do and say from the time they greet participants to the time they dismiss them.
  • Create standard instructions that participants read themselves or that are read to them word for word by the experimenter.
  • Automate the rest of the procedure as much as possible by using software packages for this purpose or even simple computer slide shows.
  • Anticipate participants’ questions and either raise and answer them in the instructions or develop standard answers for them.
  • Train multiple experimenters on the protocol together and have them practice on each other.
  • Be sure that each experimenter tests participants in all conditions.

Another good practice is to arrange for the experimenters to be “blind” to the research question or to the condition in which each participant is tested. The idea is to minimize experimenter expectancy effects by minimizing the experimenters’ expectations. For example, in a drug study in which each participant receives the drug or a placebo, it is often the case that neither the participants nor the experimenter who interacts with the participants knows which condition they have been assigned to complete. Because both the participants and the experimenters are blind to the condition, this technique is referred to as a  double-blind study . (A single-blind study is one in which only the participant is blind to the condition.) Of course, there are many times this blinding is not possible. For example, if you are both the investigator and the only experimenter, it is not possible for you to remain blind to the research question. Also, in many studies, the experimenter  must  know the condition because they must carry out the procedure in a different way in the different conditions.

image

Record Keeping

It is essential to keep good records when you conduct an experiment. As discussed earlier, it is typical for experimenters to generate a written sequence of conditions before the study begins and then to test each new participant in the next condition in the sequence. As you test them, it is a good idea to add to this list basic demographic information; the date, time, and place of testing; and the name of the experimenter who did the testing. It is also a good idea to have a place for the experimenter to write down comments about unusual occurrences (e.g., a confused or uncooperative participant) or questions that come up. This kind of information can be useful later if you decide to analy z e sex differences or effects of different experimenters, or if a question arises about a particular participant or testing session.

Since participants' identities should be kept as confidential (or anonymous) as possible, their names and other identifying information should not be included with their data. In order to identify individual participants, it can, therefore, be useful to assign an identification number to each participant as you test them. Simply numbering them consecutively beginning with 1 is usually sufficient. This number can then also be written on any response sheets or questionnaires that participants generate, making it easier to keep them together.

Manipulation Check

In many experiments, the independent variable is a construct that can only be manipulated indirectly. For example, a researcher might try to manipulate participants’ stress levels indirectly by telling some of them that they have five minutes to prepare a short speech that they will then have to give to an audience of other participants. In such situations, researchers often include a manipulation check  in their procedure. A manipulation check is a separate measure of the construct the researcher is trying to manipulate. The purpose of a manipulation check is to confirm that the independent variable was, in fact, successfully manipulated. For example, researchers trying to manipulate participants’ stress levels might give them a paper-and-pencil stress questionnaire or take their blood pressure—perhaps right after the manipulation or at the end of the procedure—to verify that they successfully manipulated this variable.

Manipulation checks are particularly important when the results of an experiment turn out null. In cases where the results show no significant effect of the manipulation of the independent variable on the dependent variable, a manipulation check can help the experimenter determine whether the null result is due to a real absence of an effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable or if it is due to a problem with the manipulation of the independent variable. Imagine, for example, that you exposed participants to happy or sad movie music—intending to put them in happy or sad moods—but you found that this had no effect on the number of happy or sad childhood events they recalled. This could be because being in a happy or sad mood has no effect on memories for childhood events. But it could also be that the music was ineffective at putting participants in happy or sad moods. A manipulation check—in this case, a measure of participants’ moods—would help resolve this uncertainty. If it showed that you had successfully manipulated participants’ moods, then it would appear that there is indeed no effect of mood on memory for childhood events. But if it showed that you did not successfully manipulate participants’ moods, then it would appear that you need a more effective manipulation to answer your research question.

Manipulation checks are usually done at the end of the procedure to be sure that the effect of the manipulation lasted throughout the entire procedure and to avoid calling unnecessary attention to the manipulation (to avoid a demand characteristic). However, researchers are wise to include a manipulation check in a pilot test of their experiment so that they avoid spending a lot of time and resources on an experiment that is doomed to fail and instead spend that time and energy finding a better manipulation of the independent variable.

Pilot Testing

It is always a good idea to conduct a  pilot test  of your experiment. A pilot test is a small-scale study conducted to make sure that a new procedure works as planned. In a pilot test, you can recruit participants formally (e.g., from an established participant pool) or you can recruit them informally from among family, friends, classmates, and so on. The number of participants can be small, but it should be enough to give you confidence that your procedure works as planned. There are several important questions that you can answer by conducting a pilot test:

  • Do participants understand the instructions?
  • What kind of misunderstandings do participants have, what kind of mistakes do they make, and what kind of questions do they ask?
  • Do participants become bored or frustrated?
  • Is an indirect manipulation effective? (You will need to include a manipulation check.)
  • Can participants guess the research question or hypothesis (are there demand characteristics)?
  • How long does the procedure take?
  • Are computer programs or other automated procedures working properly?
  • Are data being recorded correctly?

Of course, to answer some of these questions you will need to observe participants carefully during the procedure and talk with them about it afterward. Participants are often hesitant to criticize a study in front of the researcher, so be sure they understand that their participation is part of a pilot test and you are genuinely interested in feedback that will help you improve the procedure. If the procedure works as planned, then you can proceed with the actual study. If there are problems to be solved, you can solve them, pilot test the new procedure, and continue with this process until you are ready to proceed.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, Dana C. Leighton & Molly A. Metz is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

  • Research Report: Definition, Types + [Writing Guide]

busayo.longe

One of the reasons for carrying out research is to add to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, when conducting research, you need to document your processes and findings in a research report. 

With a research report, it is easy to outline the findings of your systematic investigation and any gaps needing further inquiry. Knowing how to create a detailed research report will prove useful when you need to conduct research.  

What is a Research Report?

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

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

Features of a Research Report 

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

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

Types of Research Report 

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

Nature of Research

  • Qualitative Research Report

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

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

  • Quantitative Research Report

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

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

Target Audience

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

  • Technical Research Report

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

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

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

  • Popular Research Report

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

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

Importance of a Research Report 

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

Guide to Writing a Research Report

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

Structure and Example of a Research Report

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

  • Table of Contents

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

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

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

  • Introduction

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

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

  • Literature Review

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

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

  • An Account of Investigation

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

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

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

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

  • Conclusions

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

  • References and Appendices

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

Tips for Writing a Research Report

  • Define the Context for the Report

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

  • Define your Audience

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

  • Include Significant Findings

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

  • Include Illustrations

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

  • Choose the Right Title

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

  • Proofread the Report

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

How to Gather Research Data for Your Report  

  • Understand the Problem

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

  • Know what your report seeks to achieve

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

  • Identify your audience

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

  • Create Surveys/Questionnaires

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sign into Formplus

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

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

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

Conclusion  

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

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

Logo

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

  • ethnographic research survey
  • research report
  • research report survey
  • busayo.longe

Formplus

You may also like:

Assessment Tools: Types, Examples & Importance

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

research methods in report writing

Ethnographic Research: Types, Methods + [Question Examples]

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

21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2022

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

How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

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

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

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

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Korean Med Sci
  • v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

Logo of jkms

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

Edward barroga.

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

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

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

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

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

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

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

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

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

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

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

Research questions in quantitative research

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

Hypotheses in quantitative research

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

Research questions in qualitative research

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

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

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

Hypotheses in qualitative research

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

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

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

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

Author Contributions:

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

11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning objectives.

  • Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
  • Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a  title page . The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

  • Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
  • Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
  • Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
  • Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behavior?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

It’s  Soooo  Cute!  How Informal Should an Article Title Be?

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

  • “Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
  • “Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
  • “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
  • “Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
  • “Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
  • “How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The  abstract  is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word  Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The  introduction  begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The  opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humorous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humor and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the  literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the  balance  of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to  ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The  closing  of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question and hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The  method section  is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centered on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method

Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on. The materials subsection is also a good place to refer to the reliability and/or validity of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items and that they accurately measure what they are intended to measure.

The  results section  is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Several journals now encourage the open sharing of raw data online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) [3] suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

  • Remind the reader of the research question.
  • Give the answer to the research question in words.
  • Present the relevant statistics.
  • Qualify the answer if necessary.
  • Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The  discussion  is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

  • Summary of the research
  • Theoretical implications
  • Practical implications
  • Limitations
  • Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how  can  they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they  would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What  new  research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end by returning to the problem or issue introduced in your opening paragraph and clearly stating how your research has addressed that issue or problem.

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centered at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An  appendix  is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to display graphs, illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract. This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract. This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.

Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method. Note that the introduction is headed with the full title, and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.

Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method. Note that the introduction is headed with the full title, and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.

Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion The discussion begins immediately after the results section ends.

Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion The discussion begins immediately after the results section ends.

Figure 11.5 References and Figure. If there were appendices or tables, they would come before the figure.

Figure 11.5 References and Figure. If there were appendices or tables, they would come before the figure.

Key Takeaways

  • An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
  • The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
  • The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
  • The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
  • The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
  • Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g.,  Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
  • Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
  • Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different color each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
  • Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.),  The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist  (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
  • Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

Creative Commons License

Share This Book

  • Increase Font Size

Enago Academy

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without AI-assistance

' src=

Imagine you’re a scientist who just made a ground-breaking discovery! You want to share your breakthrough with the world, but how? By writing a comprehensive lab report, of course. Communicating your research clearly and consistently is a crucial part of becoming a true researcher or increasing your academic literacy.

Lab reports are fundamental to scientific research, serving as a crucial means to communicate findings, methodologies , and conclusions. A well-written lab report is the key to unlock the door to scientific communication, allowing you to document your methods, present your findings, and have your work reviewed and replicated by others in the field.

But don’t be intimidated – writing a lab report is like following a recipe, with clearly defined sections and a standard format. So put on your lab coat, grab your pen (or laptop), and let’s dive into the exciting world of lab report writing!

Table of Contents

What are Lab Reports

Lab reports are detailed documents that describe and analyze an experiment or scientific study that was conducted. It outlines the methodology, results, and conclusions of an experiment or research study. Furthermore, it formally communicates the scientific process and outcomes clearly and concisely. The purpose of a lab report are as follows:

Purpose of a Lab Report

Overall, lab reports are crucial for documenting, communicating, analyzing, and disseminating scientific research in a standardized and reproducible manner, ultimately driving the progress of science. However, an excellent lab report should have the following elements:

Elements of a Lab Report

Because several elements of a lab report overlap with those of a research paper , they are often confused with each other. While both involve scientific writing, their purposes differ significantly.

Difference Between a Lab Report and a Research Paper

Research papers and lab reports are often conflated, leading to confusion. While a research paper presents new knowledge or theories, a lab report focuses on the specifics of an experiment and its results. Furthermore, lab reports are shorter than a research paper. Quite often, mentors or course instructors provides an experimental design and procedure. As a result, lab reports require less effort as your major task revolves around writing about how you performed the experiment and assessed the outcome. Contrastingly, a research paper requires more effort as you have to build an argument, combined with in-depth research and analysis of the data sources. Therefore, lab reports are usually shorter and easier to write as compared to a research paper.

Challenges in Writing Error-free Lab Reports

Writing error-free lab reports can be a daunting task, even for experienced researchers. Although manual writing and reviewing processes have been the traditional approach for report writing, they are subject to some limitations as follows:

1. Human Error

Even the most meticulous researchers can make mistakes or overlook errors, particularly when dealing with lengthy or complex reports.

2. Inconsistency

Without standardized templates or automated checks, formatting, terminology, and organizational structure can vary significantly between reports, even within the same research group.

3. Inefficiency

Manual writing, editing , and reviewing processes can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, potentially slowing down the dissemination of research findings.

4. Limited Scalability

As the volume of research and the number of lab reports increase, manual approaches become increasingly challenging and unsustainable, particularly in large research institutions or collaborative projects.

5. Lack of Real-time Collaboration

Traditional manual writing and reviewing processes often involve back-and-forth exchanges, making real-time collaboration and simultaneous editing difficult.

Furthermore, the above mentioned challenges can hinder the accurate and timely dissemination of research findings. Overcoming these hurdles is crucial to effectively communicate your scientific work. However, as these challenges become increasingly pronounced, highlighting the potential benefits of incorporating technological solutions to streamline the lab report writing process becomes necessary.

Traditional vs. AI-assisted Lab Report Writing

There are several differences between the traditional approaches to lab report writing and AI-assisted lab report writing in terms of the process, challenges, and potential outcomes.

While AI-assisted lab report writing can streamline certain processes and augment human capabilities, it is essential to strike a balance between leveraging AI’s strengths and maintaining human expertise, critical thinking, and oversight. The ideal approach may involve iterative collaboration between AI and human researchers, with AI handling data-intensive tasks and humans providing subject matter expertise, interpretation, and final review. Here are some best practices for integrating AI into the lab report writing process.

  • Familiarize yourself with your institution’s policies and guidelines regarding the use of AI tools in academic work or in writing assignments.
  • Utilize tools like TrinkaAI for proofreading , editing, and detecting plagiarism to refine your content.
  • Clearly distinguish AI-generated content through proper citations, quotations, or other methods recommended by your institution.
  • Critically evaluate and verify AI output before incorporating it into your lab report to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Although AI tools offer several benefits in writing lab reports, there are several ethical challenges associated with its use. Here are some tips for enhancing lab report writing with AI-assistance while minimizing ethical considerations.

1. Define Roles:

Establish distinct roles for AI and human writers. AI can be used for tasks like data analysis, literature review, and preliminary draft generation, while human experts should focus on critical thinking, interpretation, and final review. Furthermore, researchers/human experts must ensure the data used to train the AI model is accurate, unbiased, and representative of the research topic.

2. Maintain Transparency:

Disclose the use of AI in the research process, including the model’s capabilities, limitations, and potential biases. Additionally, document the AI model’s architecture, training data, and parameters to ensure reproducibility and facilitate peer review. Moreover, confirm if your institution or funding body permits the use of AI in report writing and clearly attribute the contributions of the AI model and human authors in the report.

3. Ensure Subject Matter Expertise:

Ensure that the AI model is trained on relevant scientific literature and data specific to the research domain. Human experts can curate and validate the training data. Therefore, verify and fact-check the information generated by the AI model against authoritative sources.

4. Address Ethical Considerations:

Adhere to ethical guidelines for AI-assisted writing, addressing concerns like authorship attribution, plagiarism, and bias. Also, scrutinize the generated content for potential data manipulation and address the ethical concerns related to its use.

5. Assure Quality:

Implement quality assurance measures, such as peer review, fact-checking, and plagiarism detection, to ensure the accuracy in the final report. Implement measures to detect and prevent plagiarism, as AI models may inadvertently reproduce copyrighted content. Furthermore, maintain human oversight and review throughout the AI-assisted writing process to ensure accuracy, relevance, and coherence.

6. Training and Education:

Provide training and education to human writers on how to effectively collaborate with AI systems, understand their capabilities and limitations, and interpret their outputs.

By following these practices, researchers can leverage the benefits of AI while maintaining high standards of quality, ethics, and transparency in their research report writing.

By combining the strengths of AI and human expertise through clear role definition, iterative collaboration, subject matter expertise, ethical guidelines, quality assurance, and proper training, researchers can streamline the lab report writing process while maintaining high standards of quality, accuracy, and scientific rigor.

Mastering lab report writing is a valuable skill for researchers across all levels. Whether you choose traditional methods or embrace AI-assisted approaches, understanding the fundamentals and best practices will lead to clearer, more impactful lab reports. Ready to craft a dynamic lab report? Kickstart your next project now!

Frequently Asked Questions

The structure of a lab report typically includes the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and reference.

There are several types of lab reports, each serving different purposes and formats depending on the specific requirements of the experiment and the field of study. Some common types are Formal Lab, Informal Lab Reports, Research Reports, Case Studies, Review Papers, Technical Reports, Field Trip Reports, and Posters and Presentations. Each type of lab report has its own format and style, tailored to the specific audience and purpose of the report.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

research methods in report writing

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Guide to Adhere Good Research Practice (FREE CHECKLIST)

Achieving Research Excellence: Checklist for good research practices

Academia is built on the foundation of trustworthy and high-quality research, supported by the pillars…

research methods in report writing

  • Industry News

EU AI Act: Charting a new course for AI governance and research

In a landmark move, the European Union (EU) is set to introduce the world’s first…

research methods in report writing

  • Old Webinars
  • Reporting Research

AI for Accuracy in Research and Academic Writing

Importance of Achieving Accuracy in Research Challenges Faced by Researchers Various Capabilities of AI Tools…

Best AI Content Detection Tools to Uphold Academic Integrity

  • Publishing Research

Upholding Academic Integrity in the Age of AI: Challenges and solutions

In today’s academic landscape, one of the most pressing challenges is ensuring academic integrity. With…

Best AI-Based Literature Review Tools

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

Embracing Imperfection: AI in Academia – Part 2

research methods in report writing

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

  • 2000+ blog articles
  • 50+ Webinars
  • 10+ Expert podcasts
  • 50+ Infographics
  • 10+ Checklists
  • Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

research methods in report writing

When should AI tools be used in university labs?

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

  • All content
  • Dictionaries
  • Encyclopedias
  • Expert Insights
  • Foundations
  • How-to Guides
  • Journal Articles
  • Little Blue Books
  • Little Green Books
  • Project Planner
  • Tools Directory
  • Sign in to my profile My Profile

Not Logged In

  • Sign in Signed in
  • My profile My Profile

Not Logged In

  • Offline Playback link

research methods in report writing

Have you created a personal profile? sign in or create a profile so that you can create alerts, save clips, playlists and searches.

Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing

  • Watching now: Chapter 1: Consider Your Research Start time: 00:00:00 End time: 00:03:52
  • Chapter 2: Report with Blogs and Social Media Start time: 00:03:53 End time: 00:04:59
  • Chapter 3: Illustrate Key Points Start time: 00:05:00 End time: 00:05:57
  • Chapter 4: Demonstrate Applications and Insights Start time: 00:05:58 End time: 00:06:34
  • Chapter 5: Collaborate Start time: 00:06:35 End time: 00:07:32
  • Chapter 6: Conclusion Start time: 00:07:33 End time: 00:08:23

Video Type: Tutorial

Salmons, J. (Academic). (2018). Reporting your research findings: best practices for report writing [Video]. Sage Research Methods. https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526443281

Salmons, Janet. "Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing." In Sage Video . London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018. Video, 00:08:23. https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526443281.

Salmons, J., 2018. Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing , Sage Video. [Streaming Video] London: Sage Publications Ltd. Available at: <https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526443281 & gt; [Accessed 16 Mar 2024].

Salmons, Janet. Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing . Online video clip. SAGE Video. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 5 Mar 2018. doi: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526443281. 16 Mar 2024.

Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing [Streaming video]. 2018. doi:10.4135/9781526443281. Accessed 03/16/2024

Please log in from an authenticated institution or log into your member profile to access the email feature.

  • Sign in/register

Add this content to your learning management system or webpage by copying the code below into the HTML editor on the page. Look for the words HTML or </>. Learn More about Embedding Video   icon link (opens in new window)

Sample View:

This is an image of a Sage Research Methods video on a Learning Management System

  • Download PDF opens in new window
  • icon/tools/download-video icon/tools/video-downloaded Download video Downloading... Video downloaded

Janet Salmons describes ways researchers can promote and disseminate their work based on the intended audience.

Chapter 1: Consider Your Research

  • Start time: 00:00:00
  • End time: 00:03:52

Chapter 2: Report with Blogs and Social Media

  • Start time: 00:03:53
  • End time: 00:04:59

Chapter 3: Illustrate Key Points

  • Start time: 00:05:00
  • End time: 00:05:57

Chapter 4: Demonstrate Applications and Insights

  • Start time: 00:05:58
  • End time: 00:06:34

Chapter 5: Collaborate

  • Start time: 00:06:35
  • End time: 00:07:32

Chapter 6: Conclusion

  • Start time: 00:07:33
  • End time: 00:08:23
  • Product: Sage Research Methods Video: Practical Research and Academic Skills
  • Type of Content: Tutorial
  • Title: Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing
  • Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
  • Publication year: 2018
  • Online pub date: March 05, 2018
  • Discipline: Sociology
  • Methods: Research report , Writing research , Communicating and disseminating research
  • Duration: 00:08:23
  • DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526443281
  • Keywords: annotated drawings , audiences for science , blogs , collaboration , communication in online communities , communication skills , decision tree: introduction , discussion boards , graphics , occupational professionalism , presentation skills , role of the researcher , Scholarly journals , Scholarly online communities , Social media , visual aids , website management Show all Show less

Academic: Janet Salmons

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

  • View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Research Methods has to offer.

  • view my profile
  • view my lists

NTRS - NASA Technical Reports Server

Available downloads, related records.

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

  • View all journals
  • My Account Login
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Open access
  • Published: 12 March 2024

The first demonstration of entirely roll-to-roll fabricated perovskite solar cell modules under ambient room conditions

  • Hasitha C. Weerasinghe 1   na1 ,
  • Nasiruddin Macadam 2   na1 ,
  • Jueng-Eun Kim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3826-9537 1 , 3   na1 ,
  • Luke J. Sutherland 1 , 3 ,
  • Dechan Angmo 1 ,
  • Leonard W. T. Ng 1 , 2 , 4 ,
  • Andrew D. Scully   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3116-3067 1 ,
  • Fiona Glenn 1 ,
  • Regine Chantler   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-7322-6121 1 ,
  • Nathan L. Chang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2744-582X 5 ,
  • Mohammad Dehghanimadvar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8160-5455 5 ,
  • Lei Shi 5 , 6 ,
  • Anita W. Y. Ho-Baillie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9849-4755 5 , 7 ,
  • Renate Egan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8970-4703 5 ,
  • Anthony S. R. Chesman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1807-4468 1 ,
  • Mei Gao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0395-7006 1 ,
  • Jacek J. Jasieniak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1608-6860 3 ,
  • Tawfique Hasan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6250-7582 2 &
  • Doojin Vak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-5563 1  

Nature Communications volume  15 , Article number:  1656 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

5917 Accesses

162 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Chemical engineering
  • Design, synthesis and processing
  • Solar cells

The rapid development of organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite solar cells has resulted in laboratory-scale devices having power conversion efficiencies that are competitive with commercialised technologies. However, hybrid perovskite solar cells are yet to make an impact beyond the research community, with translation to large-area devices fabricated by industry-relevant manufacturing methods remaining a critical challenge. Here we report the first demonstration of hybrid perovskite solar cell modules, comprising serially-interconnected cells, produced entirely using industrial roll-to-roll printing tools under ambient room conditions. As part of this development, costly vacuum-deposited metal electrodes are replaced with printed carbon electrodes. A high-throughput experiment involving the analysis of batches of 1600 cells produced using 20 parameter combinations enabled rapid optimisation over a large parameter space. The optimised roll-to-roll fabricated hybrid perovskite solar cells show power conversion efficiencies of up to 15.5% for individual small-area cells and 11.0% for serially-interconnected cells in large-area modules. Based on the devices produced in this work, a cost of ~0.7 USD W −1 is predicted for a production rate of 1,000,000 m² per year in Australia, with potential for further significant cost reductions.

Similar content being viewed by others

research methods in report writing

Scalable fabrication and coating methods for perovskite solar cells and solar modules

Nam-Gyu Park & Kai Zhu

research methods in report writing

High-speed sequential deposition of photoactive layers for organic solar cell manufacturing

Rui Sun, Tao Wang, … Jie Min

research methods in report writing

Scalable two-terminal all-perovskite tandem solar modules with a 19.1% efficiency

Bahram Abdollahi Nejand, David B. Ritzer, … Ulrich W. Paetzold

Introduction

Organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite solar cells (PeSCs) are a promising next-generation photovoltaic (PV) technology that has a demonstrated power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 26.1% 1 . Despite the record efficiencies being competitive with the market incumbent technology, crystalline Si PV with 26.8% PCE 1 , numerous challenges must be addressed for PeSCs to be realised in real-world applications. Foremost is the need to translate small-area lab-scale cells, which are often fabricated using materials or methods that are not economically viable or scalable, to large-area devices produced by high-volume, low-cost manufacturing methods. As shown by other solar PV technologies with high PCEs, such as inorganic multi-junction or GaAs cells, a failure to lower production costs will prevent PeSCs from making an impact in the marketplace 2 , 3 .

A key difference between PeSCs and conventional inorganic PV technologies is the potential for low-cost and low-energy manufacturing using solution-based industrial processes, such as spray 4 , 5 , 6 , blade 7 , 8 , 9 and slot-die (SD) coating 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 . Recent advances in large-area glass-based PeSCs have resulted in promising efficiencies of up to 25.8% 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 . However, these devices have been produced using discrete sheet-to-sheet processing, utilise vacuum-based evaporation steps, and employ subtractive laser-patterning to achieve interconnections for large-area modules. These requirements will add challenges in lowering the cost of large-scale production. In contrast, flexible PeSCs enable high-volume and high-throughput manufacturing using continuous roll-to-roll (R2R) manufacturing techniques 20 , 21 , 22 . The lightweight and physical flexibility of flexible PeSCs also offer the prospect of solar PV panels having high specific power (power-to-weight ratio), which is highly desirable for emerging applications, including space 3 , vehicle-integrated PV, and building-integrated PV 2 , 23 . However, the process of manufacturing PeSCs on a continuously-moving flexible plastic substrate imposes several technical challenges, particularly time and temperature processing limitations 24 .

Beyond advancing the manufacturing process, replacing the high-cost components in the solar cell architecture with cheaper alternatives while retaining comparable performance remains a persistent challenge. The highest cost component is the vacuum-processed Au electrode, followed by commercially produced transparent conductive electrodes (TCEs). Vacuum deposition is costly, and the nature of the process is unsuitable for use with a conventional R2R manufacturing line. There have been several reports of solution-processed back electrodes in glass-based devices 25 , 26 , 27 , but their processing involved a prolonged high-temperature step that is neither compatible with flexible plastic substrates nor suitable for R2R-based upscaling due to time constraints in the continuous process. Due to these technical challenges, the first example of a small-area PeSC (0.09 cm 2 active area) having all layers deposited on a flexible plastic substrate using R2R processes was only very recently reported (in February 2023) 28 with individual cells displaying PCEs of up to 10.8%. While the first report marked a significant milestone in the field, the efficiency was still far from that of typical research cells and only small cells were demonstrated.

Here we report the fabrication of entirely R2R-printed individual PeSCs with a record-high 15.5% PCE. We also report the first demonstration of PeSC modules produced using only industry-relevant R2R fabrication techniques, and under ambient room conditions. This was achieved by developing: (i) a robust and scalable deposition technique, (ii) perovskite-friendly carbon inks to replace vacuum-based electrodes, and (iii) a R2R-based high-throughput experimental platform as illustrated in Fig.  1a . The latter mimics manufacturing processes to produce and test thousands of research cells a day. This allowed the seamless translation from the miniature factory to the full-scale R2R fabrication of PeSC modules (~50 cm² active area) exhibiting up to 11% PCE. The future prospects of the printed PeSCs are evaluated by considering manufacturing costs for various production scenarios calculated using cost models based on the production methods and materials used in the present work, together with the resulting device efficiencies.

figure 1

a A reliable SD coating process and a perovskite-friendly carbon ink are developed to enable vacuum-free perovskite PV production. The carbon ink is upscaled using a three-roll mill and used to optimise device parameters by fabricating and testing numerous research cells using an automated roll-to-roll research platform. b Schematic illustration of roll-to-roll production of modules using SD coating, reverse gravure (RG) coating and screen printing. c The detailed structure of the series connected module, which is fully roll-to-roll fabricated on commercially available transparent electrodes.

Control of perovskite crystallisation for upscaling

Although spin coating has been widely adopted to produce efficient PeSCs, the deposition and drying parameters are significantly different in R2R production. As such, it is necessary to initially develop processing conditions using R2R or R2R-compatible methods. The introduction of the printing-friendly sequential deposition (PFSD) technique by select co-authors of this work in 2017 13 enabled the demonstration of the first PeSCs comprising R2R-deposited electron-transport layer (ETL), light-absorbing layer, and hole-transport layer (HTL), with up to 11% PCE achieved for a small-area device. Since then we also developed more facile single-step deposition techniques via the introduction of various additives such as polymers, ammonium salts, and 2D organic cations together with heating and nitrogen blowing 12 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and investigated R2R techniques reported by others 10 , 11 , 15 , 24 , 34 . Although it was possible to produce the perovskite layer in a single-step deposition, we found no approach that significantly outperforms PFSD for R2R-based upscaling.

The PFSD approach is described as ‘printing friendly’ due to its robustness and reliability under ambient conditions, and the absence of time-consuming processing steps. The key to PFSD is adding organic cations at a loading of less than 50 mol% of PbI 2 , far below the stoichiometric amount required to form perovskite crystals. This strategy retards crystallization and the precursor thin-film behaves like an amorphous material with much better film-forming properties than crystalline analogues. When additional organic cation is subsequently deposited, the reactive amorphous-phase film quickly converts to a perovskite without needing to remove the additive as it becomes a part of the perovskite. This allows the conversion to be completed on a time scale suitable for R2R processing.

Our further development of the PFSD method resulted in up to 17.9% PCE from R2R-fabricated PeSCs with vacuum-deposited Au electrodes, as discussed in Supplementary Note  2 . One significant innovation in the PFSD technique is the introduction of a shallow-angle blowing technique, (Fig.  2a ) as opposed to the conventional blowing technique applied at a right angle, used to fabricate high-quality perovskite films involving blowing gas across the substrate 35 . While effective at a laboratory scale, creating a highly uniform gas flow over a large area is challenging. The shallow-angle blowing on the edge of a roller is a simple but effective way to upscale this process, and the angle of incidence can be easily adjusted to levels that can approach zero degrees by simply changing the blower-head position. Utilising this approach, the SD-coated wet films are not deformed by an aggressive air flow before entering the well-defined solidification zone. This significantly reduces the amount of crystalline defects, and amorphous glassy films can be fabricated that are then converted instantly to a perovskite when the methyl ammonium iodide (MAI) solution is deposited, as shown in Supplementary Fig.  1 .

figure 2

a Schematic illustration of the edge-blowing technique in the roll-to-roll process. b An image (reflection mode) of perovskite films after MAI deposition. The upper sample shows a face-blowing sample with a hazy surface and the lower sample shows an edge-blowing sample with a darker and more uniform surface. Inset shows the mirror-like perovskite film fabricated with the shallow-angle blowing. c XRD data of the perovskite films produced using the two blowing methods. (The large peak at 27° is PET and the peak at 10.4° is hydrated perovskite of the air-exposed sample.) Source data are provided with this paper.

Figure  2b shows the improved quality of the perovskite film fabricated with the edge-blowing technique. The inset photograph shows the flawless mirror-like perovskite film continuously fabricated under ambient conditions (40–50% relative humidity). X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the film does not indicate the presence of PbI 2 crystals, which would be evidence of ion migration followed by inhomogeneous local concentration in the solidification process. Shallow-angle blowing produced an intermediate layer that appeared to be amorphous or comprised of small enough grains that allowed for rapid and complete conversion to perovskite upon MAI deposition. Notably, this could not be examined directly as the reactive and unstable intermediate films continuously change upon exposure to air. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images in Supplementary Fig.  2 show more homogenous films with compact grains of the shallow-angle-blown sample compared to the right-angle-blown sample. The introduction of the shallow-angle blowing not only improved the quality of the perovskite and the reliability of device performance, but also enhanced humidity tolerance (as discussed later), making the PFSD approach a suitable technique for low-cost manufacturing.

Automated, ambient, and vacuum-free device fabrication

The discovery of R2R-printable electrodes for PeSCs has long been a critical challenge in the realisation of fully R2R-fabricated vacuum-free cells. To date, most R2R-fabricated PeSCs in the literature incorporate vacuum or batch-processed back electrodes. The first fully R2R-fabricated PeSC was reported recently using a printed carbon electrode, achieving a PCE of 10.8% 28 . The efficiency was significantly lower than vacuum-based counterparts, suggesting performance degradation caused by the carbon ink. Therefore, we developed perovskite-friendly carbon inks and trialled them alongside commercially available carbon pastes, as discussed in Supplementary Note  3 .

Replacing this vacuum process, which is not only costly but also time consuming, has the additional benefit of creating a new avenue for experimental optimisation. While such an approach improves throughput for conventional R2R systems with manual operation 36 , its full potential is realised with the development of a programmable R2R SD coater for unmanned operation, allowing for the fabrication of thousands of unique PeSCs daily. Manual characterisation of this many cells is not practical. We therefore developed an automated R2R tester to test over ten thousand solar cells a day. Device parameters were automatically calculated and saved online, permitting the analysis of thousands of solar cells in minutes, rather than hours or days. The custom-built R2R research tools are shown in Fig.  3a, b , and demonstrations of the system can be seen in the  Supplementary Information . Figure  3c shows the device layout and testing setup for the high-throughput testing of R2R-fabricated solar cells.

figure 3

a The custom-built R2R SD coater used for the fabrication of thousands of unique solar cells in a day. b The custom-built automatic solar tester with a daily throughput of over 10,000 cells. c Schematic illustration of the automatic testing setup. d – h An example of a high-throughput R2R experiment to screen deposition parameters of the perovskite layer of PeSCs with a configuration: flexible TCE/SnO 2 /FA 0.45 MA 0.55 PbI 3 /PPDT2FBT/carbon electrode. Statistical ( d ) PCE, ( e ) J sc , ( f ) FF , and ( g ) open-circuit voltage ( V oc ) of 80 devices (along 44 cm substrate for each condition) for 20 different deposition parameter combinations of PbI 2 with 45 mol% FAI and MAI solutions. (centre line, median; diamond, mean; box limits, upper and lower quartiles; whiskers, 1.5× interquartile range; linecross, outliers) ( h ) PCE of 1600 consecutively fabricated PeSCs and deposition parameters along the position of the flexible film. Red dashed lines indicate the MAI amount that is nearest to the theoretical stoichiometric amount. The error bars in the box charts represent 1.5 times the interquartile range. Source data are provided with this paper.

This high-throughput experimental platform enabled us to explore the extensive fabrication parameters of vacuum-free PeSCs to rapidly identify the optimal conditions. Figure  3d–h show an example of the high-throughput R2R experiment, in this case being used to optimise deposition parameters for PbI 2 with 45 mol% formamidinium iodide (FA) and MAI solutions and to identify composition-dependant device parameters. Three PbI 2 conditions were selected to fabricate perovskite layers of about 600 nm to 1000 nm thickness. This range is somewhat thicker than typical vacuum-deposited electrode devices due to the absence of a mirror effect from the carbon-based back electrode. Also, a perfectly matched stoichiometry is not necessarily the best formulation in the FA 0.45 MA 0.55 PbI 3 system, as it can benefit from either a slight excess of lead 37 , 38 , 39 or a cation-excessive composition 40 . Therefore, the ability of SD coating to give quantitative control over the amount of material deposited allowed for the amount of MAI present in the perovskite layer to be varied from slightly cation deficient (lead-excessive composition) through to stoichiometric and slightly excessive compositions for each PbI 2 condition. The MAI-deposition flow rate was varied between 30 and 100 µL min −1 in 10 µL min −1 intervals. Figure  3h shows the deposition parameters together with the PCEs of 1600 consecutively fabricated PeSCs with 20 deposition parameters depending on the position along a 9 m-long substrate. The PeSCs were obtained in a roll form and the roll was transferred to the automatic R2R PV tester shown in Fig.  3b .

Figure  3d–h show statistical device parameters obtained from 80 cells for each condition. A thickness-tolerance hole transport material, poly[(2,5-bis(2-hexyldecyloxy)phenylene)-alt-(5,6-difluoro-4,7-di(thiophen-2-yl)benzo[c]-[1,2,5]thiadiazole)] (PPDT2FBT) 41 (further discussion on the material choice can be seen in Supplementary Note  3 ), which was used to screen carbon inks was used as an HTL in these devices. The devices with an MAI content close to the stoichiometric amount show better performance than others. The thinnest condition (16 µL min −1 ) shows the best performance at the stoichiometric amount and performance decreases rapidly with an excess of MAI or PbI 2 . Thicker films show more interesting behaviour; MAI-deficient films show better fill factor ( FF) with narrow performance variations, while films with excess MAI show higher short-circuit current ( J sc ). Most importantly, these results demonstrate the utility of the high-throughput experimental platform by identifying a composition-dependent performance trend in just one day.

A significant improvement in fully R2R-fabricated cells was achieved by introducing a new hole-transport layer (HTL) system. Poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) is a simple, widely used conjugated polymer with good light-harvesting and charge-transporting properties 42 that lends itself to low-cost mass production. While the polymer alone shows relatively poor performance as an HTL, it shows promising performance when combined with n -hexyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (HTAB) 43 , which passivates the surface traps of the perovskite layer and also provides anchoring points for the hexyl side chain of P3HT to self-assemble in the preferred molecular orientation. Despite such advantages, this HTL system has never been used with R2R-fabricated PeSCs, likely due to the technical difficulty of forming an ultra-thin HTAB skin on perovskite layers utilising a scalable deposition technique. The fabrication of the HTAB skin is achieved through delicate control of surface reactivity by adjusting the ratio of relatively nonpolar and less reactive chlorobenzene to 2-propanol solvents. A uniform P3HT layer was achieved by heating the substrate to 45 °C, which lowers the surface tension of the polymer solution and promotes the self-assembly of P3HT on the HTAB surface. Without substrate heating, P3HT formed poor films on HTAB intermittently, as shown in Fig.  4a .

figure 4

a R2R SD-coated P3HT films on perovskite films with and without gentle heating of the coating stage. b Histograms of fully R2R-fabricated PeSCs with a configuration of flexible TCE/SnO 2 /FAI 0.45 MA 0.55 PbI 3 /HTAB-P3HT or PPDT2FBT/carbon electrode. c PCE, ( d ) J sc , ( e ) FF , ( f ) V oc , and ( g ) hysteresis factor (forward-scan PCE divided by reverse-scan PCE) of the 240 consecutively fabricated HTAB-P3HT-based devices. The devices were fabricated in uncontrolled ambient conditions on a high-humidity (~60% RH) day. ( h ) Current density-voltage (J-V) curves of vacuum-free PeSCs comparing two HTLs. Inset shows an SEM cross-section image of the device with printed carbon (marked in green). i Incident-photon-to-current efficiency (IPCE) spectrum and calculated current density of the device with HTAB-P3HT HTL and printed carbon electrode. The AM 1.5 G spectrum used to calculate the current is shown in grey. Source data are provided with this paper.

The HTAB-P3HT HTL clearly outperformed PPDT2FBT, as shown in Fig.  4b . The devices not only showed higher performance but also improved reliability, indicated by the narrower distribution in the histogram. All device parameters, including the hysteresis factor of the HTAB-P3HT-based devices, can be seen in Fig.  4c–g . The figures show the parameters of the unfiltered 240 cells that were consecutively fabricated using the automated R2R SD coater. The substrate consists of blocks of 40 electrodes, separated by a 2 cm gap which can be seen in the data. The experiment was carried out under uncontrolled ambient conditions on a day with high relative humidity (~60% RH), demonstrating the robustness of the manufacturing process. In general, while the best devices were obtained on days with low humidity (30-40% RH), reliable production of PeSCs with an average PCE of ~13% was confirmed, regardless of the humidity in the lab. The J-V curve and IPCE spectrum of the best-performing device are shown in Fig.  4h, i , respectively, with 15.5% PCE, 19.9 mA cm −2 J sc , 76.1% FF and 1.02 V V oc . The IPCE spectrum shows good agreement with a calculated current density of 19.4 mA cm −2 .

Transitioning from cells to modules

The optimised device fabrication parameters were used to produce large-area modules. Since all processes were developed by scalable deposition methods, modules could be fabricated in the same way using larger SD heads, as shown in Fig.  5a , and a 10 cm wide substrate with a pre-patterned TCE. The SD heads have five channels (a detailed structure can be seen in Supplementary Fig.  3 ), and hence the optimised flow rate was simply multiplied by five to produce five-cell modules. Supplementary Fig.  4 shows images of high-quality perovskite stripes produced continuously using the R2R SD coating method. The HTAB and P3HT layers were also deposited at a flow rate five times higher than the optimised flow rate for single-stripe coating.

figure 5

a Image showing the deposition of the perovskite layer using a 5-channel SD coater. The deposition of non-stoichiometric perovskite precursor solution, blow-drying, and the conversion to perovskite by SD coating the MAI solution were carried out in one coating run. b Image showing the RG-coated carbon film on the TCE/ETL/perovskite/HTL stack. c Image of the R2R-screen-printed perovskite PV modules. An industrial off-the-shelf screen printer was used for this production. Inset shows the capacity of the machine. The photo was taken when the printer was used to produce 30 cm × 500 m organic PV modules. d Current-voltage curves of a R2R produced module. Inset shows a schematic illustration of the module structure. e Record efficiencies of various perovskite solar cells. Details can be seen in Supplementary Table  1 . Source data are provided with this paper.

For the R2R-deposited electrode, the carbon ink was deposited using the reverse gravure (RG) technique 44 . The modules were completed by R2R screen printing a silver paste on the carbon film using an industrial R2R screen printer, shown in Fig.  5c and Supplementary Fig.  5 . The printed silver was used to form charge-collection grids and interconnect the 5 individual cells, as illustrated in the inset of Fig.  5d . It was crucial to incorporate additional conductive elements alongside the carbon layer, which had a sheet resistance of approximately 800Ω sq −1 . Supplementary Fig.  11 illustrates that cells without a grid design exhibited significantly poorer performance compared to those with grids. Nonetheless, excessively covering the screen-printed silver led to a decline in performance, most likely due to solvent damage to the underlying layers. Consequently, we designed the silver pattern to achieve minimal coverage while maintaining adequate conductivity, at least surpassing that of the front electrode, for efficient charge collection. We determined that a 0.2 mm line with a 180 mesh screen provided the finest pattern that we could consistently print onto the carbon surface, and this parameter was adopted for the module.

The interconnection of cells was formed through gaps between the stripe patterns at the same time as the grid. The active area is 49.5 cm 2 (1.1 cm × 9 cm × 5 cells) and the geometric fill factor (GFF), as defined as the cell area over total area (cell area + gap area) 45 of the modules, is 75%. The GFF is somewhat lower than that of laser scribed modules with a demonstrated GFF of up to 99% 46 due to the inherent limitation of the stripe-pattern approach. However, it’s worth noting that the laser scribing process may not be suitable for the high-throughput, cost-effective manufacturing of PeSCs. Therefore, our next challenge lies in developing modules with higher GFFs and larger areas while continuing to enhance cell efficiencies through scalable processes.

The entirely R2R-fabricated modules demonstrated up to 11.0% active-area-based PCE with 192 mA current output, 62.3% FF and 4.59 V V oc in a reverse scan and 9.96% PCE in a forward scan. This efficiency is lower than the small cells, likely due to the loss of FF caused by the high resistance of the TCE and partial solvent damage incurred during the screen-printing process. Nonetheless, this report marks a significant milestone in the development of fully R2R-fabricated PeSCs.

The efficiencies obtained in this work are compared with the previous records of various PeSCs, as summarised in Fig.  5e and detailed in Supplementary Table  1 . Flexible PeSCs have always shown inferior performance compared to their glass-based counterparts due to the intrinsic performance limitation of the flexible TCEs. Therefore, batch-processed flexible PeSCs are a more suitable benchmark for R2R PeSCs as they share the same intrinsic properties. While the performances of R2R devices still trail those of batch-processed analogues, this work demonstrates significant progress towards achieving high-efficiency flexible devices. Considering the low-cost nature and the scalability of the R2R-printed carbon electrode, achieving over 15% PCE represents a major milestone in the development of this technology. Through market surveys and considering advantages in the form factor, we established that R2R PeSCs could become competitive in the portable PV market at >10% PCE 47 . Therefore, the demonstration of an 11% R2R-fabricated module is a significant step forward in commercialising this technology. However, the printed silver used in this work may not be suitable for long-term operation for commercial applications due to the corrosion issue. The next challenge would be developing a perovskite-friendly conductive carbon ink that is at least as conductive as TCEs to produce efficient silver-free PeSC modules.

Towards ultra-low-cost manufacturing

This work aimed to develop low-cost manufacturing technologies for PeSCs. Therefore, we developed a cost model based on our previous work 47 which implemented the new materials, processes and device configurations used in this work, as shown in Fig.  6a . Further details of the cost model can be seen in Supplementary Note  4 . In addition to the demonstrated devices, a model device architecture (Sequence C) is also considered to predict the potential for further cost reduction by eliminating the remaining high-cost components, i.e., commercial TCEs and silver grids.

figure 6

a Device configurations used for the analysis. Sequence (seq.) A: high-cost and high-performance option, seq. B: fully R2R-fabricated device, and seq. C: ultra-low-cost printing option to be pursued. Cost breakdown for ( b ) seq. A and ( c ) seq. B. Projected production costs of the modules ( d ) per module area and ( e ) per peak watt for all three sequences based on 17.9%, 15.5%, and 10% PCE, respectively.

Figure  6b, c show the cost fraction of each functional layer and corresponding capital costs for sequences A and B. For the vacuum-deposited electrode (Seq. A), a combination of the gold material and the equipment purchase and running costs of a R2R evaporator, is the highest cost component, followed by the commercial TCE. Other significant material costs include the encapsulation materials and the HTL whilst the costs of the ETL and perovskite are negligible in comparison. The fully printed configuration, Seq. B, shown in Fig.  6c , shows a significant reduction in the back electrode cost, resulting in only two high-cost components; the commercial TCE, and the encapsulation material.

Figure  6d, e show the production cost of encapsulated flexible perovskite solar modules per unit area (m²) and peak power (W p ), respectively. The best (not average) efficiencies obtained in this work are used for Seq. A (17.9%) and B (15.5%) to calculate $ Wp −1 . Since Seq. C is not experimentally demonstrated here, we have considered it with our highest recorded efficiency to date, achieved for a HTL-free and vacuum-free device (10%), as the most optimistic scenario. The figures clearly show the cost benefits of the carbon-electrode-based devices for both area and power-related cost metrics. The cost for Seq. B is likely to be lower than 1 USD W −1 , and Seq. C could be lower than 0.5 USD W −1 . These represent a significant reduction to the cost estimate from previous works of around 1.5 USD W −1 47 . This results from a similar or lower cost in $ m −2 , and a higher recorded efficiency. However, the technology is still not able to compete with mass-produced silicon solar cells, for which module spot prices have been lower than 0.30 USD W −1 48 . Despite this, opportunities may exist in niche markets that value the lightweight and flexible nature of these modules, as discussed in our previous work 47 . The next step for the technology would be exploring high-value PV markets at the predicted manufacturing costs while addressing the remaining high-cost components to sustainably advance the technology towards commercialisation. Supplementary Fig.  12 , with about 5 USD m −2 module cost (excluding encapsulation), shows the potential for the further cost reduction by eliminating the remaining high-cost components.

In conclusion, we have successfully addressed the key challenges for low-cost roll-to-roll production of large-area perovskite solar modules and demonstrated the world-first fully roll-to-roll-fabricated perovskite solar modules (including back electrodes) on a commercial substrate. A perovskite-friendly carbon ink was developed to replace vacuum-processed metal electrodes, the highest-cost component in perovskite solar cells. This enabled the high-throughput, vacuum-free fabrication of perovskite solar cells using only roll-to-roll processes. Automated roll-to-roll fabrication and testing systems were developed to take full advantage of high-throughput fabrication, allowing thousands of research cells to be fabricated and tested in a single day to rapidly improve roll-to-roll experimentation. Further optimisation of the process and device configuration enabled fully roll-to-roll fabricated perovskite solar cells with up to 15.5% PCE, which represents the record efficiency for fully roll-to-roll fabricated perovskite solar cells to date. All developments in this work were performed with due consideration to upscaling, leading to the first demonstration of fully roll-to-roll printed perovskite solar modules with up to 11% PCE based on the active area of the module ~50 cm². Finally, the cost model developed in this work predicts the projected manufacturing cost of modules likely to be ~0.7 USD W p −1 with the potential for substantial further reduction via replacing remaining high-cost components with low-cost alternatives. This work demonstrates significant progress of the perovskite solar technology towards low-cost at-scale commercial manufacturing.

Materials for the preparation of flexible solar cells, lead(II) iodide (99.9985%) and tin(IV) oxide (15 wt% in H 2 O colloidal dispersion) were purchased from Alfa Aesar. MAI (99.99%), FAI (99.99%) and n-hexyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (HTAB) were purchased from Greatcell Solar Materials. Commercially available TCE substrates with a sheet resistance of 8 Ω sq −1 (OPV8) were sourced from MekoPrint. Hole-transport materials poly[(2,5-bis(2-hexyldecyloxy)phenylene)-alt-(5,6-difluoro-4,7-di(thiophen-2-yl)benzo[c]-[1,2,5]thiadiazole)] (PPDT2FBT), poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT, Lisicon SP001) and 2,2’,7,7’-tetrakis(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamino)−9,9’-spirobifluorene (Spiro-MeOTAD) were purchased from 1-Materials, Merck and Luminescence Technology Corp. (Lumtec), respectively. FK209 was purchased from Lumtec. Silver paste (PV416) was purchased from DuPont. All other chemicals, including 4-tert-butylpyridine (t-BP), bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide lithium salt (LiNTf 2 ), dichlorobenzene (99%), anhydrous N,N-dimethylformamide (99.8%), and anhydrous 2-propanol (99.5%), and acetonitrile were sourced from Sigma-Aldrich and used as received.

Ink Preparation for R2R coatings

To prepare stock solutions for reverse gravure (RG) coating, a mixture of 10 mL of a 15 wt.% solution of tin(IV) oxide and 5 mL of deionised water was used without any additives. The stock solution could be used for several RG coating trials over a few weeks. For SD coating, stock solutions were prepared by mixing 5 ml of the 15 wt% solution, 10 ml of deionised water and 15 µl of acetic acid. For the perovskite layer, a fresh PbI 2 :FAI solution was prepared by dissolving 1.1 mmol (507 mg) PbI 2 and 0.45 mol% (0.5 mmol, 0.85 mg) FAI per 1 ml of anhydrous N,N-dimethylformamide in a nitrogen-filled glove box, and stirred at 70 °C for approximately 1 h. The solution was cooled to ambient temperature before transferring to a SD head. The MAI solution for the second step of the deposition was made by stirring 40 mg of MAI per 1 ml of anhydrous 2-propanol for 10 min at ambient temperature. 1.0 mM of HTAB solution was prepared in a mixed solvent (chlorobenzene:isopropanol = 9:1 v/v%). The PPDT2FBT and P3HT HTM solutions were prepared by dissolving 10 mg of PPDT2FBT per 1 ml of dichlorobenzene and 5 mg of P3HT in 1 mL of dichlorobenzene, respectively. Polymers without any dopants were dissolved by stirring at 70 °C for more than 1 h. The Spiro-OMeTAD solution was prepared by mixing 6.0 × 10 −5 mol Spiro-OMeTAD (73 mg), 2.0 × 10 −4 mol t-BP (28.8 μL), 2.0 × 10 −4 mol LiNTf 2 (17 μL of 520 mg mL −1 solution in CH 3 CN), and 1.6 × 10 −6 mol FK209 (8 μL of 300 mg mL −1 solution in CH 3 CN) in 1 mL chlorobenzene.

Carbon ink preparation

For the formulation of the SD ink, ethyl cellulose (EC, Sigma-Aldrich, 200646, viscosity 4 cP, 5% in toluene/ethanol) was used as the binder. A 1:1 mixture of carbon black (Vulcan XC72, Cabot) and graphene nanoplatelet powder (CamGraph G3, Cambridge Nanosystems) was used as the conductive carbon pigment. Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate (PGMEA) was used as the solvent. Due to the low viscosity of the desired SD ink, the ink preparation method was separated into two stages. In the initial stage, a high-viscosity ink was produced, which can be processed with a three-roll mill, breaking down pigment agglomerates into primary particles. For a 500 g ink batch, 40 g of EC was mixed in 330 g of PGMEA, stirred until the binder dissolved completely (Supplementary Fig.  9a ). Later, 100 g of the solution was reserved for use in the second stage. The remaining 270 g of solution was mixed with 130 g of conductive carbon pigment to form a slurry (Supplementary Fig.  9b ). This mixture was then processed through a three-roll mill, resulting in a uniform high viscosity ink (Supplementary Fig.  9c ). In the second stage, the high viscosity ink was diluted to produce an ink that can be used for SD coating. The remaining 100 g of EC/PGMEA was hand-mixed with the high-viscosity ink and stirred with a magnetic stir bar until a uniform ink was obtained.

Small-area cell fabrication

Functional layers were coated under ambient conditions on a benchtop R2R coater (Mini-Labo™, Yasui-Seiki) installed in a fume cabinet. A thin layer of SnO 2 ETL layer was coated on the flexible TCE substrate as received using the 10 Wt.% stock solution using reverse-gravure (RG) coating method at 4 rpm RG roll (200 R roll) speed, 0.25 m min −1 line speed and a coating width of 13 mm. The wet film was found to dry immediately and was subsequently moved to a > 135 °C curved hot plate for about 30 s, with hot air blowing at 120 °C for about 30 s.

The PET/TCE/SnO 2 film then underwent R2R IR treatment (2–3 W cm −2 ) for about 5 min using an industrial R2R screen printer (Orthotec SRN3030). The film was then installed back onto the Mini-Labo coater for coating of the perovskite layer. The PbI 2 :FAI solution was then SD coated (20 µL min −1 flow rate, 0.3 m min −1 web speed, 13 mm coating width) onto the SnO 2 film and the continuously moving wet film was then subjected to a flow of nitrogen using a 10 cm-wide air blade installed at the edge of supporting roller about 10 cm behind the coating head and 1–2 cm above the substrate. The N 2 flow rate was adjusted to about 50–100 L min −1 to form a dried intermediate PbI 2 :FAI layer. The MAI solution was then SD coated on the dried intermediate layer with the 60 µL min −1 solution. Solvent evaporation was promoted by gentle air blowing using a small fan placed approximately 20 cm behind of the MAI coating head. The film was then passed over a hot plate at 135 °C for about 10 s. The PET/TCE/SnO 2 /Perovskite film was then rewound and the HTAB and the P3HT solutions were deposited sequentially via SD coating at 0.3 m min −1 line speed, first coating the HTAB layer (15 µL min −1 flow rate, 7 mm coating width) followed by an annealing step on a curved hotplate at 100 °C for 30 s and then coating the P3HT layer (10 µL min −1 flow rate, 6 mm coating width) by placing the SD head immediately above the second curved hotplate at 45 ± 5 °C. Finally, the carbon electrode was SD coated onto the P3HT layer using the PGMEA-based carbon ink by placing the SD head immediately above the curved hotplate at 70 °C (120 µL min −1 flow rate and 5 mm coating width) to remove the solvents on the wet film completely, before an additional annealing step on the second curved hotplate at 130 °C. All R2R-processed devices were tested both with and without the additional screen-printed silver grid. The silver grid was screen printed using a semi-auto screen printer (Keywell KY-600FH) with 180 mesh screen onto the top carbon electrode and was annealed at 130 °C for 30 s on a hot plate.

For automatic fabrications, a thin SnO 2 ETL layer was prepared by SD coating of the 5 wt% solution (65 µL min −1 , 13 mm coating width) with an acetic acid additive at 0.2 m min −1 . (See Supplementary Note  1 for further details) The film was dried with hot air (135 °C for 5 min) and hot plate (135 °C for 1 min) using the commercial coater and then the film was IR treated as described above. 100 m length rolls are typically prepared and a batch of film could be used for multiple experiments over weeks. For other layers, the custom-built R2R machine shown in Fig.  3a was used. The same SD heads used in the commercial R2R coater were used in the custom-built machine. Therefore, all coating parameters were interchangeable between the two machines. However, a smaller air blade (13 mm width) with a lower flow rate (~20 L m −1 ) was used for the nitrogen blowing. Besides the blowing condition, various coating parameters for PbI 2 and MAI solutions described in the main text were trialled with the automatic fabrication setup. For the fabrication of HTAB, P3HT, PPDT2FBT and carbon layers, the coating conditions described above were used in the custom-built machine. Once coating is complete, the roll at the winder was moved to the unwinder so that no rewinding was necessary. The two-step deposition for the perovskite layer was performed in a single pass and the HTAB/P3HT were also deposited in a single pass. So, the fabrication required total four coating runs (ETL, perovskite, HTL and carbon) and was typically completed within a day. The same-design SD heads could be used for all the layers. They were typically cleaned after full disassembly by wiping the remaining inks, followed by ultrasonication in the solvent used in each ink for 5 min and drying by nitrogen blowing. The sonication and drying steps were repeated two more times, and the cleaning typically took 20 min. The tubing was used only once and disposed, except for the SD set for carbon layer (including tube, syringe and the ink), which was kept without disassembly in a sealed bag and used for multiple batches over months.

Serially connected module fabrication

Functional layers were coated under ambient conditions on a benchtop R2R coater (Mini-Labo™, Yasui-Seiki) installed in a fume cabinet. All R2R-processed PeSC modules comprising five series-connected strip cells were fabricated on a stripe-patterned (13 mm stripes with 2 mm gap between stripes) commercial TCE. The module has the same configuration as the small cells, i.e., PET/TCE/SnO 2 FA 0.45 MA 0.55 PbI 3 /HTAB/P3HT/Carbon/Ag. The SnO 2 ETL layer was deposited by RG coating in the same way as the small cells (200 R roll, 4 rpm, and 0.25 m min −1 line speed) but with a roller with 5 stripes. The coating width was the same width as the TCE pattern so that the stripes were made with 0.5–1 mm of offset with respect to the patterned TCEs to achieve exposed TCE for series connections.

The remaining layers up to the carbon electrode were coated using the coating methods (SD coating head having five channels to deposit five 13 mm-wide wet coating stripes), line speeds, and the annealing conditions illustrated in the previous section. Flow rates used for the coating of 5 stripes using the PbI 2 :FAI, MAI, HTAB, P3HT and carbon inks were 100, 300, 140, 92, and 600 µL min −1 , respectively. The P3HT layer was deposited on a custom-built curved hot plate fitted with a heating tape (shown in Supplementary Fig.  4b ) at 45 ± 5 °C. A screen-printed grid using a commercially available Ag ink was used to enhance the charge collection of the module and to interconnect the 5 cells in series. Screen printing was performed on an Orthotec-2 R2R screen printing system. The screen-printed Ag grid was dried using IR irradiance (1.5–2 W cm −2 ) and hot air (90 °C). The active area of each strip cell was typically ~10 cm 2 (width: ~1.1 cm determined by manually controlled offset and length: 9.0 cm) resulting in an active module area of ~50 cm 2 . The fabrication of R2R modules typically took two days and required two researchers.

Characterisation methods

Manual J-V measurements were undertaken using a solar simulator (Newport Oriel) in air without encapsulation. The solar simulator was calibrated to 1-sun (1000 W m −2 ) AM 1.5 G illumination using a certified Si reference cell with KG-1 filter (Enlitech, certified by Enlitech in accordance with IEC 60904-1:2006, spectral mismatch factor with carbon-based cells: 0.92) and a source metre (Keithley 2400). Devices were typically kept in air or a dry box for long-term storage before the measurement. A shadow mask was used to define a cell active area of 0.08 cm 2 for small cells. Modules were tested without a shadow mask. J-V measurements were carried out in the forward (increasing forward bias) and reverse (decreasing forward bias) scan directions over the voltage range from −0.2 V to 1.2 V with 20 mV step for cells (~250 mV s −1 ) and −0.2 V to 5 V with 200 mV step (~1 V s −1 ) for modules, respectively. For automatic J-V testing, a class AAA solar simulator (Enlitech SS-F5-3A) was used after calibration using the same reference cell. A secondary reference cell provided by Enlitech was also used to regularly check the light intensity. For the automatic testing, a circular aperture (1.8 mm diameter, Thorlabs) was used to define the beam size of 0.025 cm 2 which was illuminated on about 0.2 cm 2 cells defined by the coating width of carbon electrodes and the TCE pattern. The small aperture was deliberately chosen to tolerate the positioning error of the roll-to-roll tester. The PeSCs fabricated in the custom-built R2R coater were collected as a roll. The roll was then mounted on the R2R tester by positioning it on the winder of the tester and then rewound to get the starting point of the coating experiment. It is critical to set the position of the first cell under the aperture. A 2 cm gap in the TCE pattern was used to recalibrate the first cell position of every 20 cm block of 40 stripes by checking conductivity through the spring pins. The automatic testing was typically performed in air, but the data in Fig.  4c–g was obtained in a nitrogen-filled box. IPCE measurements were carried out using a commercial IPCE setup (Peccel S20). XRD patterns were obtained using a Rigaku SmartLab, equipped with a rotating anode CuKα source (45 kV, 200 mA), and Hypix 3000 detector. The SEM images of the films were taken with a Zeiss Merlin field emission SEM. A Hewlett-Packard 8453 diode-array spectrophotometer was used for optical density measurements. Time-resolved photoluminescence measurements were performed using a time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) luminescence spectrometer (Edindburgh Instruments Ltd., FLSP920) comprising a pulsed diode laser excitation source (466 nm, 100 kHz, ~100 ps FWHM, ~0.2 nJ cm −2 pulse −1 ) and a Hamamatsu R928P photomultiplier tube detector, giving an overall instrument response time of ~0.7 ns (FWHM). Photoelectron Spectroscopy in Air (PESA) measurements were performed using a Riken Kekei AC2 spectrometer.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The experimental data that support the findings of this study are available in Figshare with the identifier: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24502210 .

https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html . accessed February 2024.

Wilson, G. M. et al. The 2020 photovoltaic technologies roadmap. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 53 , 493001 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Reese, M. O. et al. Increasing markets and decreasing package weight for high-specific-power photovoltaics. Nat. Energy 3 , 1002–1012 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Jung, Y. S. et al. Differentially pumped spray deposition as a rapid screening tool for organic and perovskite solar cells. Sci. Rep. 6 , 20357 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Heo, J. H., Lee, M. H., Jang, M. H. & Im, S. H. Highly efficient CH3NH3PbI3−xClx mixed halide perovskite solar cells prepared by re-dissolution and crystal grain growth via spray coating. J. Mater. Chem. A Mater. 4 , 17636–17642 (2016).

Barrows, A. T. et al. Efficient planar heterojunction mixed-halide perovskite solar cells deposited via spray-deposition. Energy Environ. Sci. 7 , 2944–2950 (2014).

Deng, Y. et al. Scalable fabrication of efficient organolead trihalide perovskite solar cells with doctor-bladed active layers. Energy Environ. Sci. 8 , 1544–1550 (2015).

Zhong, Y. et al. Blade-coated hybrid perovskite solar cells with efficiency > 17%: an in situ investigation. ACS Energy Lett. 3 , 1078–1085 (2018).

Mallajosyula, A. T. et al. Large-area hysteresis-free perovskite solar cells via temperature controlled doctor blading under ambient environment. Appl Mater. Today 3 , 96–102 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dou, B. et al. Roll-to-Roll Printing of Perovskite Solar Cells. ACS Energy Lett. 3 , 2558–2565 (2018).

Galagan, Y. et al. Roll-to-roll slot die coated perovskite for efficient flexible solar cells. Adv. Energy Mater. 1801935 , 1801935 (2018).

Zuo, C., Vak, D., Angmo, D., Ding, L. & Gao, M. One-step roll-to-roll air processed high efficiency perovskite solar cells. Nano Energy 46 , 185–192 (2018).

Heo, Y. J. et al. Printing-friendly sequential deposition via intra-additive approach for roll-to-roll process of perovskite solar cells. Nano Energy 41 , 443–451 (2017).

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Giacomo, F. Di et al. Large area 140 cm 2 perovskite solar modules made by sheet to sheet and roll to roll fabrication with 14.5% efficiency. 2018 IEEE 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (WCPEC 2018) (A Joint Conference of 45th IEEE PVSC, 28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC). 2795–2798 (IEEE, 2018).

Burkitt, D. et al. Roll-to-roll slot-die coated P-I-N perovskite solar cells using acetonitrile based single step perovskite solvent system. Sustain. Energy Fuels 4 , 3340–3351 (2020).

Deng, Y. et al. Defect compensation in formamidinium–caesium perovskites for highly efficient solar mini-modules with improved photostability. Nat. Energy 6 , 633–641 (2021).

Ritzer, D. B. et al. Upscaling of perovskite solar modules: the synergy of fully evaporated layer fabrication and all-laser-scribed interconnections. Prog. Photovoltaics: Res. Appl. 30 , 360–373 (2022).

Cheng, Y., Peng, Y., Jen, A. K. Y. & Yip, H. L. Development and challenges of metal halide perovskite solar modules. Sol. RRL 6 , 2100545 (2022).

Xiao, X. et al. Lead-adsorbing ionogel-based encapsulation for impact-resistant, stable, and lead-safe perovskite modules. Sci. Adv. 7 , eabi8249 (2021).

Jung, Y. S. et al. Progress in scalable coating and roll-to-roll compatible printing processes of perovskite solar cells toward realization of commercialization. Adv. Opt. Mater. 6 , 1701182 (2018).

Wang, F. et al. Materials toward the upscaling of perovskite solar cells: progress, challenges, and strategies. Adv. Funct. Mater. 28 , 1803753 (2018).

Yang, F. et al. Upscaling solution-processed perovskite photovoltaics. Adv. Energy Mater. 11 , 2101973 (2021).

Yang, D., Yang, R., Priya, S. & Liu, S. F. Recent advances in flexible perovskite solar cells: fabrication and applications. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58 , 4466–4483 (2019).

Kim, Y. Y. et al. Roll-to-roll gravure-printed flexible perovskite solar cells using eco-friendly antisolvent bathing with wide processing window. Nat. Commun. 11 , 5146 (2020).

Anyi, M. et al. A hole-conductor–free, fully printable mesoscopic perovskite solar cell with high stability. Science 345 , 295–298 (2014).

Chu, Q. Q. et al. Cost effective perovskite solar cells with a high efficiency and open-circuit voltage based on a perovskite-friendly carbon electrode. J. Mater. Chem. A Mater. 6 , 8271–8279 (2018).

Yang, M. et al. High efficient and long-time stable planar heterojunction perovskite solar cells with doctor-bladed carbon electrode. J. Power Sources 424 , 61–67 (2019).

Beynon, D. et al. All‐printed roll‐to‐roll perovskite photovoltaics enabled by solution‐processed carbon electrode. Adv. Mater. 35 , 2208561 (2023).

Kim, J. E. et al. Humidity-tolerant roll-to-roll fabrication of perovskite solar cells via polymer-additive-assisted hot slot die deposition. Adv. Funct. Mater. 29 , 1809194 (2019).

Angmo, D. et al. A lab-to-fab study toward roll-to-roll fabrication of reproducible perovskite solar cells under ambient room conditions. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2 , 100293 (2021).

Kim, J. E. et al. Slot die coated planar perovskite solar cells via blowing and heating assisted one step deposition. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 179 , 80–86 (2018).

Zuo, C. et al. Self-assembled 2D Perovskite layers for efficient printable solar cells. Adv. Energy Mater. 9 , 1803258 (2019).

Zuo, C. et al. Crystallisation control of drop-cast quasi-2D/3D perovskite layers for efficient solar cells. Commun. Mater. 1 , 33 (2020).

Ham, D. S. et al. Influence of drying conditions on device performances of antisolvent-assisted roll-to-roll slot die-coated perovskite solar cells. ACS Appl Energy Mater. 4 , 7611–7621 (2021).

Abbas, M. et al. A critical review on crystal growth techniques for scalable deposition of photovoltaic perovskite thin films. Materials 13 , 4851 (2020).

An, N. G., Kim, J. Y. & Vak, D. Machine learning-assisted development of organic photovoltaics via high-throughput in situ formulation. Energy Environ. Sci. 14 , 3438–3446 (2021).

Jiang, Q. et al. Planar-structure Perovskite solar cells with efficiency beyond 21%. Adv. Mater. 29 , 1703852 (2017).

Park, B. et al. Understanding how excess lead iodide precursor improves halide perovskite solar cell performance. Nat. Commun. 9 , 3301 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ma, Z. et al. Excess PbI2 evolution for triple-cation based perovskite solar cells with 21.9% efficiency. J. Energy Chem. 66 , 152–160 (2022).

Son, D.-Y. et al. Self-formed grain boundary healing layer for highly efficient CH3NH3PbI3 perovskite solar cells. Nat. Energy 1 , 16081 (2016).

Koh, C. W. et al. Enhanced efficiency and long-term stability of Perovskite solar cells by synergistic effect of nonhygroscopic doping in conjugated polymer-based hole-transporting layer. ACS Appl Mater. Interfaces 9 , 43846–43854 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

NG, L. W. T., Lee, S. W., Chang, D. W., Hodgkiss, J. M. & Vak, D. Organic photovoltaics’ new renaissance: advances toward roll-to-roll manufacturing of non-fullerene acceptor organic photovoltaics. Adv. Mater. Technol. 7 , 2101556 (2022).

Jung, E. H. et al. Efficient, stable and scalable perovskite solar cells using poly(3-hexylthiophene). Nature 567 , 511–515 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vak, D. et al. Reverse gravure coating for roll-to-roll production of organic photovoltaics. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 149 , 154–161 (2016).

Brabec, C. J. et al. Material strategies to accelerate OPV technology toward a GW technology. Adv. Energy Mater. 10 , 2001864 (2020).

Rakocevic, L. et al. Perovskite modules with 99% geometrical fill factor using point contact interconnections design. Prog. Photovoltaics: Res. Appl. 28 , 1120–1127 (2020).

Chang, N. L. et al. Manufacturing cost and market potential analysis of demonstrated roll-to-roll perovskite photovoltaic cell processes. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 174 , 314–324 (2018).

ITRPV 13th Edition 2022. accessed 1 May. https://www.vdma.org/international-technology-roadmap-photovoltaic .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded predominantly by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) (grant no. 2017/RND012). This work was also supported by the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics (ACAP) programme funded by the Australian Government through ARENA, the Australian Research Council Center of Excellence in Exciton Science (grant no. CE170100026), Australia-India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF) (grant no. AISRF75426), L.W.T.N. acknowledges a Nanyang Technological University (NTU) College of Engineering International Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors acknowledge the assistance received from Dr Aaron Seeber with the analysis and interpretation of XRD results and CSIRO Manufacturing’s Materials Characterisation and Modelling (MCM) team for SEM.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Hasitha C. Weerasinghe, Nasiruddin Macadam, Jueng-Eun Kim.

Authors and Affiliations

Flexible Electronics Laboratory, CSIRO Manufacturing, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia

Hasitha C. Weerasinghe, Jueng-Eun Kim, Luke J. Sutherland, Dechan Angmo, Leonard W. T. Ng, Andrew D. Scully, Fiona Glenn, Regine Chantler, Anthony S. R. Chesman, Mei Gao & Doojin Vak

Cambridge Graphene Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0FA, UK

Nasiruddin Macadam, Leonard W. T. Ng & Tawfique Hasan

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

Jueng-Eun Kim, Luke J. Sutherland & Jacek J. Jasieniak

School of Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), 50 Nanyang Ave, Block N4.1, Singapore, 639798, Singapore

Leonard W. T. Ng

School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

Nathan L. Chang, Mohammad Dehghanimadvar, Lei Shi, Anita W. Y. Ho-Baillie & Renate Egan

Foshan Xianhu Laboratory of the Advanced Energy Science and Technology Guangdong Laboratory, Foshan, China

Sydney Nano and School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Anita W. Y. Ho-Baillie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

H.C.W., N.M., and J.-E. K. contributed equally. H.C.W., J.-E.K., L.Sutherland, D.A., F.G. and D.V. fabricated cells and modules. N.M., L.W.T.N. and T.H. developed printable carbon pastes. D.V. developed automatic fabrication and testing system. A.S., L.Shi, A.W.Y.H.-B and A.S.R.C. performed characterisation of films and devices. N.C., M.D., R.E., R.C. and D.V. developed cost models and performed cost calculations. A.S.R.C., M.G., J.J.J., T. H. and D. V. coordinated and supervised this work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jacek J. Jasieniak , Tawfique Hasan or Doojin Vak .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Aurora Rizzo, Trystan Watson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Weerasinghe, H.C., Macadam, N., Kim, JE. et al. The first demonstration of entirely roll-to-roll fabricated perovskite solar cell modules under ambient room conditions. Nat Commun 15 , 1656 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46016-1

Download citation

Received : 25 June 2023

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 12 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46016-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

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

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

research methods in report writing

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

IMAGES

  1. Types of Research Report

    research methods in report writing

  2. (PDF) Research Methodology WRITING A RESEARCH REPORT

    research methods in report writing

  3. 15 Types of Research Methods (2024)

    research methods in report writing

  4. How to Write Your Methods

    research methods in report writing

  5. How to write Method Section of Research Paper in 03 easy steps

    research methods in report writing

  6. PPT

    research methods in report writing

VIDEO

  1. Report Writing

  2. DAY 1

  3. Choosing A Research Topic

  4. ||Report Writing method and Important reports||plus two English|| CHSE Exam'24

  5. Research Paper Methodology

  6. Research Report writing, research report in research methodology, research report format, research

COMMENTS

  1. What Is a Research Methodology?

    Step 1: Explain your methodological approach. Step 2: Describe your data collection methods. Step 3: Describe your analysis method. Step 4: Evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made. Tips for writing a strong methodology chapter. Other interesting articles.

  2. How to Write Your Methods

    Your Methods Section contextualizes the results of your study, giving editors, reviewers and readers alike the information they need to understand and interpret your work. Your methods are key to establishing the credibility of your study, along with your data and the results themselves. A complete methods section should provide enough detail ...

  3. How to write the Methods section of a research paper

    4. Use subheadings: Dividing the Methods section in terms of the experiments helps the reader to follow the section better. You may write the specific objective of each experiment as a subheading. Alternatively, if applicable, the name of each experiment can also be used as subheading. 5.

  4. Research Methodology

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

  5. Research Report

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

  6. Your Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Good Research Methodology

    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.

  7. Methodology section in a report

    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.

  8. 11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association

    Plan and write an effective APA-style research report. In this section, ... An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your "recipe." This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic ...

  9. Introduction to Research Methods and Report Writing

    This book provides introductory materials on research methods and report writing that aim at guiding students and researchers towards effective research and reporting of their findings. Unlike the many volumes on research that are mostly theoretical, this book originated in the classroom and grew out of the students' own needs to design and conduct satisfactory research in order to meet ...

  10. Writing up a Research Report

    Write up a state-of-the-art research report. Understand how to use scientific language in research reports. Develop a structure for your research report that comprises all relevant sections. Assess the consistency of your research design. Avoid dumbfounding your reader with surprising information.

  11. Writing a Research Report

    This review is divided into sections for easy reference. There are five MAJOR parts of a Research Report: 1. Introduction 2. Review of Literature 3. Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion. As a general guide, the Introduction, Review of Literature, and Methods should be about 1/3 of your paper, Discussion 1/3, then Results 1/3.

  12. How to Write a Research Report

    Methods Map. This visualization demonstrates how methods are related and connects users to relevant content. Project Planner. Find step-by-step guidance to complete your research project. Which Stats Test. Answer a handful of multiple-choice questions to see which statistical method is best for your data. Reading Lists

  13. Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA

    In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report, an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. ... The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most ...

  14. PDF How to Write an Effective Research REport

    Abstract. This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of ...

  15. Sage Research Methods

    Methods Map. This visualization demonstrates how methods are related and connects users to relevant content. Project Planner. Find step-by-step guidance to complete your research project. Which Stats Test. Answer a handful of multiple-choice questions to see which statistical method is best for your data. Reading Lists

  16. Research Report: Definition, Types + [Writing Guide]

    Tips for Writing a Research Report. Define the Context for the Report; As is obtainable when writing an essay, defining the context for your research report would help you create a detailed yet concise document. ... However, an online survey is a more effective method of research data collection because it helps you save time and gather data ...

  17. A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research

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

  18. (Pdf) a Guide to Research Writing

    BookPDF Available. A GUIDE TO RESEARCH WRITING. May 2019. Publisher: paperback. ISBN: 9781099092008. Authors: David Annan. Swiss School Of Business and Management Geneva. Citations (3)

  19. 11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association

    The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one. ... 11.2 Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani ...

  20. (PDF) Research Methodology WRITING A RESEARCH REPORT

    A research report should normally be written in the third person and aoid use of pronouns like, 'I', 'Me', 'My' etc. 5. The report should facilitate the reader with systematic presentation like ...

  21. PDF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY REPORT WRITING

    6. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR REPORT WRITING After the research process is over, many researchers face the difficulty of writing down the research. It is advisable that before starting the report writing, the entire research time frame, planning and organizing of the study material is done on the basis of the objectives and the hypothesis made.

  22. How To Write A Lab Report

    A well-written lab report is the key to unlock the door to scientific communication, allowing you to document your methods, present your findings, and have your work reviewed and replicated by others in the field. ... and transparency in their research report writing. By combining the strengths of AI and human expertise through clear role ...

  23. Reporting Your Research Findings: Best Practices for Report Writing

    How can you write an effective report to share your research findings with different audiences? Janet Salmons, an expert in online research methods, offers practical tips and strategies for report writing in this video from SAGE Research Methods. Learn how to tailor your report to the purpose, context, and expectations of your readers, and how to use visuals, tables, and appendices to enhance ...

  24. East-to-west human dispersal into Europe 1.4 million years ago

    Here, using two methods of burial dating with cosmogenic nuclides 4,5, we report ages of 1.42 ± 0.10 million years and 1.42 ± 0.28 million years for the sedimentary unit that contains Mode-1 ...

  25. NTRS

    This document outlines a concept of operations (ConOps) for a future state of wildland fire prevention, mitigation, and suppression offered as a recommendation and initial guidance for updating current methodologies, technologies, or standards to fit the growing scope of wildland fire. This document serves to collect and summarize the research and work of NASA and other U.S. federal agencies ...

  26. The first demonstration of entirely roll-to-roll fabricated ...

    The translation of perovskite solar cells to large-area devices fabricated by industry-relevant manufacturing methods remains a critical challenge. Here, authors report solar modules with serially ...

  27. Microsoft to Release Security AI Product to Help Clients Track Hackers

    Microsoft Corp. plans to release artificial intelligence tools on April 1 that will help cybersecurity workers produce summaries of suspicious incidents and ferret out the devious methods hackers ...