action research plan in education example

21 Action Research Examples (In Education)

Action research is an example of qualitative research . It refers to a wide range of evaluative or investigative methods designed to analyze professional practices and take action for improvement.

Commonly used in education, those practices could be related to instructional methods, classroom practices, or school organizational matters.

The creation of action research is attributed to Kurt Lewin , a German-American psychologist also considered to be the father of social psychology.

Gillis and Jackson (2002) offer a very concise definition of action research: “systematic collection and analysis of data for the purpose of taking action and making change” (p.264).

The methods of action research in education include:

• conducting in-class observations
• taking field notes
• surveying or interviewing teachers, administrators, or parents
• using audio and video recordings.

The goal is to identify problematic issues, test possible solutions, or simply carry-out continuous improvement.

There are several steps in action research : identify a problem, design a plan to resolve, implement the plan, evaluate effectiveness, reflect on results, make necessary adjustment and repeat the process.

Action Research Examples

• Digital literacy assessment and training: The school’s IT department conducts a survey on students’ digital literacy skills. Based on the results, a tailored training program is designed for different age groups.
• Library resources utilization study: The school librarian tracks the frequency and type of books checked out by students. The data is then used to curate a more relevant collection and organize reading programs.
• Extracurricular activities and student well-being: A team of teachers and counselors assess the impact of extracurricular activities on student mental health through surveys and interviews. Adjustments are made based on findings.
• Parent-teacher communication channels: The school evaluates the effectiveness of current communication tools (e.g., newsletters, apps) between teachers and parents. Feedback is used to implement a more streamlined system.
• Homework load evaluation: Teachers across grade levels assess the amount and effectiveness of homework given. Adjustments are made to ensure a balance between academic rigor and student well-being.
• Classroom environment and learning: A group of teachers collaborates to study the impact of classroom layouts and decorations on student engagement and comprehension. Changes are made based on the findings.
• Student feedback on curriculum content: High school students are surveyed about the relevance and applicability of their current curriculum. The feedback is then used to make necessary curriculum adjustments.
• Teacher mentoring and support: New teachers are paired with experienced mentors. Both parties provide feedback on the effectiveness of the mentoring program, leading to continuous improvements.
• Assessment of school transportation: The school board evaluates the efficiency and safety of school buses through surveys with students and parents. Necessary changes are implemented based on the results.
• Cultural sensitivity training: After conducting a survey on students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences, the school organizes workshops for teachers to promote a more inclusive classroom environment.
• Environmental initiatives and student involvement: The school’s eco-club assesses the school’s carbon footprint and waste management. They then collaborate with the administration to implement greener practices and raise environmental awareness.
• Working with parents through research: A school’s admin staff conduct focus group sessions with parents to identify top concerns.Those concerns will then be addressed and another session conducted at the end of the school year.
• Peer teaching observations and improvements: Kindergarten teachers observe other teachers handling class transition techniques to share best practices.
• PTA surveys and resultant action: The PTA of a district conducts a survey of members regarding their satisfaction with remote learning classes.The results will be presented to the school board for further action.
• Recording and reflecting: A school administrator takes video recordings of playground behavior and then plays them for the teachers. The teachers work together to formulate a list of 10 playground safety guidelines.
• Pre/post testing of interventions: A school board conducts a district wide evaluation of a STEM program by conducting a pre/post-test of students’ skills in computer programming.
• Focus groups of practitioners : The professional development needs of teachers are determined from structured focus group sessions with teachers and admin.
• School lunch research and intervention: A nutrition expert is hired to evaluate and improve the quality of school lunches.
• School nurse systematic checklist and improvements: The school nurse implements a bathroom cleaning checklist to monitor cleanliness after the results of a recent teacher survey revealed several issues.
• Wearable technologies for pedagogical improvements; Students wear accelerometers attached to their hips to gain a baseline measure of physical activity.The results will identify if any issues exist.
• School counselor reflective practice : The school counselor conducts a student survey on antisocial behavior and then plans a series of workshops for both teachers and parents.

Detailed Examples

1. cooperation and leadership.

A science teacher has noticed that her 9 th grade students do not cooperate with each other when doing group projects. There is a lot of arguing and battles over whose ideas will be followed.

So, she decides to implement a simple action research project on the matter. First, she conducts a structured observation of the students’ behavior during meetings. She also has the students respond to a short questionnaire regarding their notions of leadership.

She then designs a two-week course on group dynamics and leadership styles. The course involves learning about leadership concepts and practices . In another element of the short course, students randomly select a leadership style and then engage in a role-play with other students.

At the end of the two weeks, she has the students work on a group project and conducts the same structured observation as before. She also gives the students a slightly different questionnaire on leadership as it relates to the group.

She plans to analyze the results and present the findings at a teachers’ meeting at the end of the term.

2. Professional Development Needs

Two high-school teachers have been selected to participate in a 1-year project in a third-world country. The project goal is to improve the classroom effectiveness of local teachers. 

The two teachers arrive in the country and begin to plan their action research. First, they decide to conduct a survey of teachers in the nearby communities of the school they are assigned to.

The survey will assess their professional development needs by directly asking the teachers and administrators. After collecting the surveys, they analyze the results by grouping the teachers based on subject matter.

They discover that history and social science teachers would like professional development on integrating smartboards into classroom instruction. Math teachers would like to attend workshops on project-based learning, while chemistry teachers feel that they need equipment more than training.

The two teachers then get started on finding the necessary training experts for the workshops and applying for equipment grants for the science teachers.

3. Playground Accidents

The school nurse has noticed a lot of students coming in after having mild accidents on the playground. She’s not sure if this is just her perception or if there really is an unusual increase this year.  So, she starts pulling data from the records over the last two years. She chooses the months carefully and only selects data from the first three months of each school year.

She creates a chart to make the data more easily understood. Sure enough, there seems to have been a dramatic increase in accidents this year compared to the same period of time from the previous two years.

She shows the data to the principal and teachers at the next meeting. They all agree that a field observation of the playground is needed.

Those observations reveal that the kids are not having accidents on the playground equipment as originally suspected. It turns out that the kids are tripping on the new sod that was installed over the summer.

They examine the sod and observe small gaps between the slabs. Each gap is approximately 1.5 inches wide and nearly two inches deep. The kids are tripping on this gap as they run.

They then discuss possible solutions.

4. Differentiated Learning

Trying to use the same content, methods, and processes for all students is a recipe for failure. This is why modifying each lesson to be flexible is highly recommended. Differentiated learning allows the teacher to adjust their teaching strategy based on all the different personalities and learning styles they see in their classroom.

Of course, differentiated learning should undergo the same rigorous assessment that all teaching techniques go through. So, a third-grade social science teacher asks his students to take a simple quiz on the industrial revolution. Then, he applies differentiated learning to the lesson.

By creating several different learning stations in his classroom, he gives his students a chance to learn about the industrial revolution in a way that captures their interests. The different stations contain: short videos, fact cards, PowerPoints, mini-chapters, and role-plays.

At the end of the lesson, students get to choose how they demonstrate their knowledge. They can take a test, construct a PPT, give an oral presentation, or conduct a simulated TV interview with different characters.

During this last phase of the lesson, the teacher is able to assess if they demonstrate the necessary knowledge and have achieved the defined learning outcomes. This analysis will allow him to make further adjustments to future lessons.

5. Healthy Habits Program

While looking at obesity rates of students, the school board of a large city is shocked by the dramatic increase in the weight of their students over the last five years. After consulting with three companies that specialize in student physical health, they offer the companies an opportunity to prove their value.

So, the board randomly assigns each company to a group of schools. Starting in the next academic year, each company will implement their healthy habits program in 5 middle schools.

Preliminary data is collected at each school at the beginning of the school year. Each and every student is weighed, their resting heart rate, blood pressure and cholesterol are also measured.

After analyzing the data, it is found that the schools assigned to each of the three companies are relatively similar on all of these measures.

At the end of the year, data for students at each school will be collected again. A simple comparison of pre- and post-program measurements will be conducted. The company with the best outcomes will be selected to implement their program city-wide.

Action research is a great way to collect data on a specific issue, implement a change, and then evaluate the effects of that change. It is perhaps the most practical of all types of primary research .

Most likely, the results will be mixed. Some aspects of the change were effective, while other elements were not. That’s okay. This just means that additional modifications to the change plan need to be made, which is usually quite easy to do.

There are many methods that can be utilized, such as surveys, field observations , and program evaluations.

The beauty of action research is based in its utility and flexibility. Just about anyone in a school setting is capable of conducting action research and the information can be incredibly useful.

Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Gillis, A., & Jackson, W. (2002). Research Methods for Nurses: Methods and Interpretation . Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of SocialIssues, 2 (4), 34-46.

Macdonald, C. (2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13 , 34-50. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37 Mertler, C. A. (2008). Action Research: Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom . London: Sage.

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

2 thoughts on “21 Action Research Examples (In Education)”

Where can I capture this article in a better user-friendly format, since I would like to provide it to my students in a Qualitative Methods course at the University of Prince Edward Island? It is a good article, however, it is visually disjointed in its current format. Thanks, Dr. Frank T. Lavandier

Hi Dr. Lavandier,

I’ve emailed you a word doc copy that you can use and edit with your class.

Best, Chris.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

Action research in the classroom: A teacher's guide

November 26, 2021

Discover best practices for action research in the classroom, guiding teachers on implementing and facilitating impactful studies in schools.

Main, P (2021, November 26). Action research in the classroom: A teacher's guide. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/action-research-in-the-classroom-a-teachers-guide

What is action research?

Action research is a participatory process designed to empower educators to examine and improve their own practice. It is characterized by a cycle of planning , action, observation, and reflection, with the goal of achieving a deeper understanding of practice within educational contexts. This process encourages a wide range of approaches and can be adapted to various social contexts.

At its core, action research involves critical reflection on one's actions as a basis for improvement. Senior leaders and teachers are guided to reflect on their educational strategies , classroom management, and student engagement techniques. It's a collaborative effort that often involves not just the teachers but also the students and other stakeholders, fostering an inclusive process that values the input of all participants.

The action research process is iterative, with each cycle aiming to bring about a clearer understanding and improvement in practice. It typically begins with the identification of real-world problems within the school environment, followed by a circle of planning where strategies are developed to address these issues. The implementation of these strategies is then observed and documented, often through journals or participant observation, allowing for reflection and analysis.

The insights gained from action research contribute to Organization Development, enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. This approach is strongly aligned with the principles of Quality Assurance in Education, ensuring that the actions taken are effective and responsive to the needs of the school community.

Educators can share their findings in community forums or through publications in journals, contributing to the wider theory about practice . Tertiary education sector often draws on such studies to inform teacher training and curriculum development.

In summary, the significant parts of action research include:

• A continuous cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection.
• A focus on reflective practice to achieve a deeper understanding of educational methodologies.
• A commitment to inclusive and participatory processes that engage the entire school community.

Creating an action research project

The action research process usually begins with a situation or issue that a teacher wants to change as part of school improvement initiatives .

Teachers get support in changing the ' interesting issue ' into a 'researchable question' and then taking to experiment. The teacher will draw on the outcomes of other researchers to help build actions and reveal the consequences .

Participatory action research is a strategy to the enquiry which has been utilised since the 1940s. Participatory action involves researchers and other participants taking informed action to gain knowledge of a problematic situation and change it to bring a positive effect. As an action researcher , a teacher carries out research . Enquiring into their practice would lead a teacher to question the norms and assumptions that are mostly overlooked in normal school life . Making a routine of inquiry can provide a commitment to learning and professional development . A teacher-researcher holds the responsibility for being the source and agent of change.

Examples of action research projects in education include a teacher working with students to improve their reading comprehension skills , a group of teachers collaborating to develop and implement a new curriculum, or a school administrator conducting a study on the effectiveness of a school-wide behavior management program.

In each of these cases, the research is aimed at improving the educational experience for students and addressing a specific issue or problem within the school community . Action research can be a powerful tool for educators to improve their practice and make a positive impact on their students' learning.

Potential research questions could include:

• How can dual-coding be used to improve my students memory ?
• Does mind-mapping lead to creativity?
• How does Oracy improve my classes writing?
• How can we advance critical thinking in year 10?
• How can graphic organisers be used for exam preparation?

Regardless of the types of action research your staff engage in, a solid cycle of inquiry is an essential aspect of the action research spiral. Building in the process of reflection will ensure that key points of learning can be extracted from the action research study.

What is an action research cycle?

Action research in education is a cycle of reflection and action inquiry , which follows these steps:

1. Identifying the problem

It is the first stage of action research that starts when a teacher identifies a problem or question that they want to address. To make an a ction research approach successful, the teacher needs to ensure that the questions are the ones 'they' wish to solve. Their questions might involve social sciences, instructional strategies, everyday life and social management issues, guide for students analytical research methods for improving specific student performance or curriculum implementation etc. Teachers may seek help from a wide variety of existing literature , to find strategies and solutions that others have executed to solve any particular problem. It is also suggested to build a visual map or a table of problems, target performances, potential solutions and supporting references in the middle.

2. Developing an Action Plan

After identifying the problem, after r eviewing the relevant literature and describing the vision of how to solve the problem; the next step would be action planning which means to develop a plan of action . Action planning involves studying the literature and brainstorming can be used by the action research planner to create new techniques and strategies that can generate better results of both action learning and action research. One may go back to the visual map or table of contents and reorder or colour-code the potential outcomes. The items in the list can be ranked in order of significance and the amount of time needed for these strategies.

An action plan has the details of how to implement each idea and the factors that may keep them from their vision of success . Identify those factors that cannot be changed –these are the constants in an equation. The focus of action research at the planning stage must remain focused on the variables –the factors that can be changed using actions. An action plan must be how to implement a solution and how one's instruction, management style, and behaviour will affect each of the variables.

3. Data Collection

Before starting to implement a plan of action , the researcher must have a complete understanding of action research and must have knowledge of the type of data that may help in the success of the plan and must assess how to collect that data. For instance, if the goal is to improve class attendance, attendance records must be collected as useful data for the participatory action. If the goal is to improve time management, the data may include students and classroom observations . There are many options to choose from to collect data from. Selecting the most suitable methodology for data collection will provide more meaningful , accurate and valid data. Some sources of data are interviews and observation. Also, one may administer surveys , distribute questionnaires and watch videotapes of the classroom to collect data.

4. Data Analysis and Conclusions

At this action stage, an action researcher analyses the collected data and concludes. It is suggested to assess the data during the predefined process of data collection as it will help refine the action research agenda. If the collected data seems insufficient , the data collection plan must be revised. Data analysis also helps to reflect on what exactly happened. Did the action researcher perform the actions as planned? Were the study outcomes as expected? Which assumptions of the action researcher proved to be incorrect?

Adding details such as tables, opinions, and recommendations can help in identifying trends (correlations and relationships). One must share the findings while analysing data and drawing conclusions . Engaging in conversations for teacher growth is essential; hence, the action researcher would share the findings with other teachers through discussion of action research, who can yield useful feedback. One may also share the findings with students, as they can also provide additional insight . For example, if teachers and students agree with the conclusions of action research for educational change, it adds to the credibility of the data collection plan and analysis. If they don't seem to agree with the data collection plan and analysis , the action researchers may take informed action and refine the data collection plan and reevaluate conclusions .

5. Modifying the Educational Theory and Repeat

After concluding, the process begins again. The teacher can adjust different aspects of the action research approach to theory or make it more specific according to the findings . Action research guides how to change the steps of action research development, how to modify the action plan , and provide better access to resources, start data collection once again, or prepare new questions to ask from the respondents.

6. Report the Findings

Since the main approach to action research involves the informed action to introduce useful change into the classroom or schools, one must not forget to share the outcomes with others. Sharing the outcomes would help to further reflect on the problem and process, and it would help other teachers to use these findings to enhance their professional practice as an educator. One may print book and share the experience with the school leaders, principal, teachers and students as they served as guide to action research. Or, a community action researcher may present community-based action research at a conference so people from other areas can take advantage of this collaborative action. Also, teachers may use a digital storytelling tool to outline their results.

There are plenty of creative tools we can use to bring the research projects to life. We have seen videos, podcasts and research posters all being used to communicate the results of these programs. Community action research is a unique way to present details of the community-related adventures in the teacher profession, cultivate expertise and show how teachers think about education , so it is better to find unique ways to report the findings of community-led action research.

Final thoughts on action-research for teachers

As we have seen, action research can be an effective form of professional development, illuminating the path for teachers and school leaders seeking to refine their craft. This cyclical process of inquiry and reflection is not merely a methodological pursuit but a profound professional journey. The definition of action research, as a systematic inquiry conducted by teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment, emphasizes the collaborative nature of improving educational strategies and outcomes.

Action research transcends traditional disciplinary practices by immersing educators in the social contexts of their work, prompting them to question and adapt their methods to meet the evolving needs of their students . It is a form of reflective practice that demands critical thinking and flexibility, as one navigates through the iterative stages of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

The process of action research is inherently participatory, encouraging educators to engage with their learning communities to address key issues and social issues that impact educational settings. This method empowers professionals within universities and schools alike to take ownership of their learning and development, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and participatory approaches.

In summary, action research encapsulates the essence of what it means to be a learning professional in a dynamic educational landscape. It is the embodiment of a commitment to lifelong learning and a testament to the capacity of educators to enact change . The value of action research lies in its ability to transform practitioners into researchers, where the quest for knowledge becomes a powerful conduit for change and innovation. Thus, for educators at every level, embracing the rigorous yet rewarding path of action research can unveil potent insights and propel educational practice to new heights.

Key Papers on Action Research

• Utilizing Action Research During Student Teaching by James O. Barbre and Brenda J. Buckner (2013): This study explores how action research can be effectively utilized during student teaching to enhance professional pedagogical disposition through active reflection. It emphasizes developing a reflective habit of mind crucial for teachers to be effective in their classrooms and adaptive to the changing needs of their students.
• Repositioning T eacher Action Research in Science Teacher Education by B. Capobianco and A. Feldman (2010): This paper discusses the promotion of action research as a way for teachers to improve their practice and students' learning for over 50 years, focusing on science education. It highlights the importance of action research in advancing knowledge about teaching and learning in science.
• Action research and teacher leadership by K. Smeets and P. Ponte (2009): This article reports on a case study into the influence and impact of action research carried out by teachers in a special school. It found that action research not only helps teachers to get to grips with their work in the classroom but also has an impact on the work of others in the school.
• Teaching about the Nature of Science through History: Action Research in the Classroom by J. Solomon, Jon Duveen, Linda Scot, S. McCarthy (1992): This article reports on 18 months of action research monitoring British pupils' learning about the nature of science using historical aspects. It indicates areas of substantial progress in pupils' understanding of the nature of science.
• Action Research in the Classroom by V. Baumfield, E. Hall, K. Wall (2008): This comprehensive guide to conducting action research in the classroom covers various aspects, including deciding on a research question, choosing complementary research tools, collecting and interpreting data, and sharing findings. It aims to move classroom inquiry forward and contribute to professional development.

These studies highlight the significant role of action research in enhancing teacher effectiveness, student learning outcomes, and contributing to the broader educational community's knowledge and practices.

Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School

Download an Overview of our Support and Resources

We'll send it over now.

Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.

What type of school are you?

We'll get you the right resource

Is your school involved in any staff development projects?

Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?

Do you have any immediate school priorities?

Please check the ones that apply.

Download your resource

Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.

Classroom Practice

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

1 What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is the nature of action research?
• How does action research develop in the classroom?
• What models of action research work best for your classroom?
• What are the epistemological, ontological, theoretical underpinnings of action research?

Educational research provides a vast landscape of knowledge on topics related to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, students’ cognitive and affective needs, cultural and socio-economic factors of schools, and many other factors considered viable to improving schools. Educational stakeholders rely on research to make informed decisions that ultimately affect the quality of schooling for their students. Accordingly, the purpose of educational research is to engage in disciplined inquiry to generate knowledge on topics significant to the students, teachers, administrators, schools, and other educational stakeholders. Just as the topics of educational research vary, so do the approaches to conducting educational research in the classroom. Your approach to research will be shaped by your context, your professional identity, and paradigm (set of beliefs and assumptions that guide your inquiry). These will all be key factors in how you generate knowledge related to your work as an educator.

Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educational practitioners and professionals to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice. In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their classroom. When students are actively engaged in learning, the classroom can be dynamic and uncertain, demanding the constant attention of the educator. Considering these demands, educators are often only able to engage in reflection that is fleeting, and for the purpose of accommodation, modification, or formative assessment. Action research offers one path to more deliberate, substantial, and critical reflection that can be documented and analyzed to improve an educator’s practice.

Purpose of Action Research

As one of many approaches to educational research, it is important to distinguish the potential purposes of action research in the classroom. This book focuses on action research as a method to enable and support educators in pursuing effective pedagogical practices by transforming the quality of teaching decisions and actions, to subsequently enhance student engagement and learning. Being mindful of this purpose, the following aspects of action research are important to consider as you contemplate and engage with action research methodology in your classroom:

• Action research is a process for improving educational practice. Its methods involve action, evaluation, and reflection. It is a process to gather evidence to implement change in practices.
• Action research is participative and collaborative. It is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• Action research is situation and context-based.
• Action research develops reflection practices based on the interpretations made by participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and application.
• Action research can be based in problem-solving, if the solution to the problem results in the improvement of practice.
• Action research is iterative; plans are created, implemented, revised, then implemented, lending itself to an ongoing process of reflection and revision.
• In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy, 2010, pgs. 1-2).

In thinking about the purpose of action research, it is helpful to situate action research as a distinct paradigm of educational research. I like to think about action research as part of the larger concept of living knowledge. Living knowledge has been characterized as “a quest for life, to understand life and to create… knowledge which is valid for the people with whom I work and for myself” (Swantz, in Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 1). Why should educators care about living knowledge as part of educational research? As mentioned above, action research is meant “to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2010, pg. 2). However, it is also about:

creating new forms of understanding, since action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless. The participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action, which is its focus. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 2)

In an effort to further situate action research as living knowledge, Jean McNiff reminds us that “there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘action research’” (2013, pg. 24). In other words, action research is not static or finished, it defines itself as it proceeds. McNiff’s reminder characterizes action research as action-oriented, and a process that individuals go through to make their learning public to explain how it informs their practice. Action research does not derive its meaning from an abstract idea, or a self-contained discovery – action research’s meaning stems from the way educators negotiate the problems and successes of living and working in the classroom, school, and community.

While we can debate the idea of action research, there are people who are action researchers, and they use the idea of action research to develop principles and theories to guide their practice. Action research, then, refers to an organization of principles that guide action researchers as they act on shared beliefs, commitments, and expectations in their inquiry.

Reflection and the Process of Action Research

When an individual engages in reflection on their actions or experiences, it is typically for the purpose of better understanding those experiences, or the consequences of those actions to improve related action and experiences in the future. Reflection in this way develops knowledge around these actions and experiences to help us better regulate those actions in the future. The reflective process generates new knowledge regularly for classroom teachers and informs their classroom actions.

Unfortunately, the knowledge generated by educators through the reflective process is not always prioritized among the other sources of knowledge educators are expected to utilize in the classroom. Educators are expected to draw upon formal types of knowledge, such as textbooks, content standards, teaching standards, district curriculum and behavioral programs, etc., to gain new knowledge and make decisions in the classroom. While these forms of knowledge are important, the reflective knowledge that educators generate through their pedagogy is the amalgamation of these types of knowledge enacted in the classroom. Therefore, reflective knowledge is uniquely developed based on the action and implementation of an educator’s pedagogy in the classroom. Action research offers a way to formalize the knowledge generated by educators so that it can be utilized and disseminated throughout the teaching profession.

Research is concerned with the generation of knowledge, and typically creating knowledge related to a concept, idea, phenomenon, or topic. Action research generates knowledge around inquiry in practical educational contexts. Action research allows educators to learn through their actions with the purpose of developing personally or professionally. Due to its participatory nature, the process of action research is also distinct in educational research. There are many models for how the action research process takes shape. I will share a few of those here. Each model utilizes the following processes to some extent:

• Plan a change;
• Take action to enact the change;
• Observe the process and consequences of the change;
• Reflect on the process and consequences;
• Act, observe, & reflect again and so on.

Figure 1.1 Basic action research cycle

There are many other models that supplement the basic process of action research with other aspects of the research process to consider. For example, figure 1.2 illustrates a spiral model of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (2004). The spiral model emphasizes the cyclical process that moves beyond the initial plan for change. The spiral model also emphasizes revisiting the initial plan and revising based on the initial cycle of research:

Figure 1.2 Interpretation of action research spiral, Kemmis and McTaggart (2004, p. 595)

Other models of action research reorganize the process to emphasize the distinct ways knowledge takes shape in the reflection process. O’Leary’s (2004, p. 141) model, for example, recognizes that the research may take shape in the classroom as knowledge emerges from the teacher’s observations. O’Leary highlights the need for action research to be focused on situational understanding and implementation of action, initiated organically from real-time issues:

Figure 1.3 Interpretation of O’Leary’s cycles of research, O’Leary (2000, p. 141)

Lastly, Macintyre’s (2000, p. 1) model, offers a different characterization of the action research process. Macintyre emphasizes a messier process of research with the initial reflections and conclusions as the benchmarks for guiding the research process. Macintyre emphasizes the flexibility in planning, acting, and observing stages to allow the process to be naturalistic. Our interpretation of Macintyre process is below:

Figure 1.4 Interpretation of the action research cycle, Macintyre (2000, p. 1)

We believe it is important to prioritize the flexibility of the process, and encourage you to only use these models as basic guides for your process. Your process may look similar, or you may diverge from these models as you better understand your students, context, and data.

Definitions of Action Research and Examples

At this point, it may be helpful for readers to have a working definition of action research and some examples to illustrate the methodology in the classroom. Bassey (1998, p. 93) offers a very practical definition and describes “action research as an inquiry which is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate and then to change, in order to improve educational practice.” Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 192) situate action research differently, and describe action research as emergent, writing:

essentially an on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation. This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews and case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, redefinitions, as necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

Lastly, Koshy (2010, p. 9) describes action research as:

a constructive inquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

These definitions highlight the distinct features of action research and emphasize the purposeful intent of action researchers to improve, refine, reform, and problem-solve issues in their educational context. To better understand the distinctness of action research, these are some examples of action research topics:

Examples of Action Research Topics

• Flexible seating in 4th grade classroom to increase effective collaborative learning.
• Structured homework protocols for increasing student achievement.
• Developing a system of formative feedback for 8th grade writing.
• Using music to stimulate creative writing.
• Weekly brown bag lunch sessions to improve responses to PD from staff.
• Using exercise balls as chairs for better classroom management.

Action Research in Theory

Action research-based inquiry in educational contexts and classrooms involves distinct participants – students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders within the system. All of these participants are engaged in activities to benefit the students, and subsequently society as a whole. Action research contributes to these activities and potentially enhances the participants’ roles in the education system. Participants’ roles are enhanced based on two underlying principles:

• communities, schools, and classrooms are sites of socially mediated actions, and action research provides a greater understanding of self and new knowledge of how to negotiate these socially mediated environments;
• communities, schools, and classrooms are part of social systems in which humans interact with many cultural tools, and action research provides a basis to construct and analyze these interactions.

In our quest for knowledge and understanding, we have consistently analyzed human experience over time and have distinguished between types of reality. Humans have constantly sought “facts” and “truth” about reality that can be empirically demonstrated or observed.

Social systems are based on beliefs, and generally, beliefs about what will benefit the greatest amount of people in that society. Beliefs, and more specifically the rationale or support for beliefs, are not always easy to demonstrate or observe as part of our reality. Take the example of an English Language Arts teacher who prioritizes argumentative writing in her class. She believes that argumentative writing demonstrates the mechanics of writing best among types of writing, while also providing students a skill they will need as citizens and professionals. While we can observe the students writing, and we can assess their ability to develop a written argument, it is difficult to observe the students’ understanding of argumentative writing and its purpose in their future. This relates to the teacher’s beliefs about argumentative writing; we cannot observe the real value of the teaching of argumentative writing. The teacher’s rationale and beliefs about teaching argumentative writing are bound to the social system and the skills their students will need to be active parts of that system. Therefore, our goal through action research is to demonstrate the best ways to teach argumentative writing to help all participants understand its value as part of a social system.

The knowledge that is conveyed in a classroom is bound to, and justified by, a social system. A postmodernist approach to understanding our world seeks knowledge within a social system, which is directly opposed to the empirical or positivist approach which demands evidence based on logic or science as rationale for beliefs. Action research does not rely on a positivist viewpoint to develop evidence and conclusions as part of the research process. Action research offers a postmodernist stance to epistemology (theory of knowledge) and supports developing questions and new inquiries during the research process. In this way action research is an emergent process that allows beliefs and decisions to be negotiated as reality and meaning are being constructed in the socially mediated space of the classroom.

Theorizing Action Research for the Classroom

All research, at its core, is for the purpose of generating new knowledge and contributing to the knowledge base of educational research. Action researchers in the classroom want to explore methods of improving their pedagogy and practice. The starting place of their inquiry stems from their pedagogy and practice, so by nature the knowledge created from their inquiry is often contextually specific to their classroom, school, or community. Therefore, we should examine the theoretical underpinnings of action research for the classroom. It is important to connect action research conceptually to experience; for example, Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 105) make these connections:

• Action research is context bound and addresses real life problems.
• Action research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously.
• The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action or these reflections and action lead to the construction of new meanings.
• The credibility/validity of action research knowledge is measured according to whether the actions that arise from it solve problems (workability) and increase participants’ control over their own situation.

Educators who engage in action research will generate new knowledge and beliefs based on their experiences in the classroom. Let us emphasize that these are all important to you and your work, as both an educator and researcher. It is these experiences, beliefs, and theories that are often discounted when more official forms of knowledge (e.g., textbooks, curriculum standards, districts standards) are prioritized. These beliefs and theories based on experiences should be valued and explored further, and this is one of the primary purposes of action research in the classroom. These beliefs and theories should be valued because they were meaningful aspects of knowledge constructed from teachers’ experiences. Developing meaning and knowledge in this way forms the basis of constructivist ideology, just as teachers often try to get their students to construct their own meanings and understandings when experiencing new ideas.  

Classroom Teachers Constructing their Own Knowledge

Most of you are probably at least minimally familiar with constructivism, or the process of constructing knowledge. However, what is constructivism precisely, for the purposes of action research? Many scholars have theorized constructivism and have identified two key attributes (Koshy, 2010; von Glasersfeld, 1987):

• Knowledge is not passively received, but actively developed through an individual’s cognition;
• Human cognition is adaptive and finds purpose in organizing the new experiences of the world, instead of settling for absolute or objective truth.

Considering these two attributes, constructivism is distinct from conventional knowledge formation because people can develop a theory of knowledge that orders and organizes the world based on their experiences, instead of an objective or neutral reality. When individuals construct knowledge, there are interactions between an individual and their environment where communication, negotiation and meaning-making are collectively developing knowledge. For most educators, constructivism may be a natural inclination of their pedagogy. Action researchers have a similar relationship to constructivism because they are actively engaged in a process of constructing knowledge. However, their constructions may be more formal and based on the data they collect in the research process. Action researchers also are engaged in the meaning making process, making interpretations from their data. These aspects of the action research process situate them in the constructivist ideology. Just like constructivist educators, action researchers’ constructions of knowledge will be affected by their individual and professional ideas and values, as well as the ecological context in which they work (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). The relations between constructivist inquiry and action research is important, as Lincoln (2001, p. 130) states:

much of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological belief systems are the same or similar, and methodologically, constructivists and action researchers work in similar ways, relying on qualitative methods in face-to-face work, while buttressing information, data and background with quantitative method work when necessary or useful.

While there are many links between action research and educators in the classroom, constructivism offers the most familiar and practical threads to bind the beliefs of educators and action researchers.  

Epistemology, Ontology, and Action Research

It is also important for educators to consider the philosophical stances related to action research to better situate it with their beliefs and reality. When researchers make decisions about the methodology they intend to use, they will consider their ontological and epistemological stances. It is vital that researchers clearly distinguish their philosophical stances and understand the implications of their stance in the research process, especially when collecting and analyzing their data. In what follows, we will discuss ontological and epistemological stances in relation to action research methodology.

Ontology, or the theory of being, is concerned with the claims or assumptions we make about ourselves within our social reality – what do we think exists, what does it look like, what entities are involved and how do these entities interact with each other (Blaikie, 2007). In relation to the discussion of constructivism, generally action researchers would consider their educational reality as socially constructed. Social construction of reality happens when individuals interact in a social system. Meaningful construction of concepts and representations of reality develop through an individual’s interpretations of others’ actions. These interpretations become agreed upon by members of a social system and become part of social fabric, reproduced as knowledge and beliefs to develop assumptions about reality. Researchers develop meaningful constructions based on their experiences and through communication. Educators as action researchers will be examining the socially constructed reality of schools. In the United States, many of our concepts, knowledge, and beliefs about schooling have been socially constructed over the last hundred years. For example, a group of teachers may look at why fewer female students enroll in upper-level science courses at their school. This question deals directly with the social construction of gender and specifically what careers females have been conditioned to pursue. We know this is a social construction in some school social systems because in other parts of the world, or even the United States, there are schools that have more females enrolled in upper level science courses than male students. Therefore, the educators conducting the research have to recognize the socially constructed reality of their school and consider this reality throughout the research process. Action researchers will use methods of data collection that support their ontological stance and clarify their theoretical stance throughout the research process.

Koshy (2010, p. 23-24) offers another example of addressing the ontological challenges in the classroom:

A teacher who was concerned with increasing her pupils’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning decided to introduce learning diaries which the children could take home. They were invited to record their reactions to the day’s lessons and what they had learnt. The teacher reported in her field diary that the learning diaries stimulated the children’s interest in her lessons, increased their capacity to learn, and generally improved their level of participation in lessons. The challenge for the teacher here is in the analysis and interpretation of the multiplicity of factors accompanying the use of diaries. The diaries were taken home so the entries may have been influenced by discussions with parents. Another possibility is that children felt the need to please their teacher. Another possible influence was that their increased motivation was as a result of the difference in style of teaching which included more discussions in the classroom based on the entries in the dairies.

Here you can see the challenge for the action researcher is working in a social context with multiple factors, values, and experiences that were outside of the teacher’s control. The teacher was only responsible for introducing the diaries as a new style of learning. The students’ engagement and interactions with this new style of learning were all based upon their socially constructed notions of learning inside and outside of the classroom. A researcher with a positivist ontological stance would not consider these factors, and instead might simply conclude that the dairies increased motivation and interest in the topic, as a result of introducing the diaries as a learning strategy.

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, signifies a philosophical view of what counts as knowledge – it justifies what is possible to be known and what criteria distinguishes knowledge from beliefs (Blaikie, 1993). Positivist researchers, for example, consider knowledge to be certain and discovered through scientific processes. Action researchers collect data that is more subjective and examine personal experience, insights, and beliefs.

Action researchers utilize interpretation as a means for knowledge creation. Action researchers have many epistemologies to choose from as means of situating the types of knowledge they will generate by interpreting the data from their research. For example, Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009) identified several common epistemologies in their article that examined epistemological awareness in qualitative educational research, such as: objectivism, subjectivism, constructionism, contextualism, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, idealism, naturalized epistemology, externalism, relativism, skepticism, and pluralism. All of these epistemological stances have implications for the research process, especially data collection and analysis. Please see the table on pages 689-90, linked below for a sketch of these potential implications:

Again, Koshy (2010, p. 24) provides an excellent example to illustrate the epistemological challenges within action research:

A teacher of 11-year-old children decided to carry out an action research project which involved a change in style in teaching mathematics. Instead of giving children mathematical tasks displaying the subject as abstract principles, she made links with other subjects which she believed would encourage children to see mathematics as a discipline that could improve their understanding of the environment and historic events. At the conclusion of the project, the teacher reported that applicable mathematics generated greater enthusiasm and understanding of the subject.

The educator/researcher engaged in action research-based inquiry to improve an aspect of her pedagogy. She generated knowledge that indicated she had improved her students’ understanding of mathematics by integrating it with other subjects – specifically in the social and ecological context of her classroom, school, and community. She valued constructivism and students generating their own understanding of mathematics based on related topics in other subjects. Action researchers working in a social context do not generate certain knowledge, but knowledge that emerges and can be observed and researched again, building upon their knowledge each time.

Researcher Positionality in Action Research

In this first chapter, we have discussed a lot about the role of experiences in sparking the research process in the classroom. Your experiences as an educator will shape how you approach action research in your classroom. Your experiences as a person in general will also shape how you create knowledge from your research process. In particular, your experiences will shape how you make meaning from your findings. It is important to be clear about your experiences when developing your methodology too. This is referred to as researcher positionality. Maher and Tetreault (1993, p. 118) define positionality as:

Gender, race, class, and other aspects of our identities are markers of relational positions rather than essential qualities. Knowledge is valid when it includes an acknowledgment of the knower’s specific position in any context, because changing contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and our knowledge in any given situation.

By presenting your positionality in the research process, you are signifying the type of socially constructed, and other types of, knowledge you will be using to make sense of the data. As Maher and Tetreault explain, this increases the trustworthiness of your conclusions about the data. This would not be possible with a positivist ontology. We will discuss positionality more in chapter 6, but we wanted to connect it to the overall theoretical underpinnings of action research.

Advantages of Engaging in Action Research in the Classroom

In the following chapters, we will discuss how action research takes shape in your classroom, and we wanted to briefly summarize the key advantages to action research methodology over other types of research methodology. As Koshy (2010, p. 25) notes, action research provides useful methodology for school and classroom research because:

Advantages of Action Research for the Classroom

• research can be set within a specific context or situation;
• researchers can be participants – they don’t have to be distant and detached from the situation;
• it involves continuous evaluation and modifications can be made easily as the project progresses;
• there are opportunities for theory to emerge from the research rather than always follow a previously formulated theory;
• the study can lead to open-ended outcomes;
• through action research, a researcher can bring a story to life.

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Our Mission

How Teachers Can Learn Through Action Research

A look at one school’s action research project provides a blueprint for using this model of collaborative teacher learning.

When teachers redesign learning experiences to make school more relevant to students’ lives, they can’t ignore assessment. For many teachers, the most vexing question about real-world learning experiences such as project-based learning is: How will we know what students know and can do by the end of this project?

Teachers at the Siena School in Silver Spring, Maryland, decided to figure out the assessment question by investigating their classroom practices. As a result of their action research, they now have a much deeper understanding of authentic assessment and a renewed appreciation for the power of learning together.

Their research process offers a replicable model for other schools interested in designing their own immersive professional learning. The process began with a real-world challenge and an open-ended question, involved a deep dive into research, and ended with a public showcase of findings.

Start With an Authentic Need to Know

Siena School serves about 130 students in grades 4–12 who have mild to moderate language-based learning differences, including dyslexia. Most students are one to three grade levels behind in reading.

Teachers have introduced a variety of instructional strategies, including project-based learning, to better meet students’ learning needs and also help them develop skills like collaboration and creativity. Instead of taking tests and quizzes, students demonstrate what they know in a PBL unit by making products or generating solutions.

“We were already teaching this way,” explained Simon Kanter, Siena’s director of technology. “We needed a way to measure, was authentic assessment actually effective? Does it provide meaningful feedback? Can teachers grade it fairly?”

Focus the Research Question

Across grade levels and departments, teachers considered what they wanted to learn about authentic assessment, which the late Grant Wiggins described as engaging, multisensory, feedback-oriented, and grounded in real-world tasks. That’s a contrast to traditional tests and quizzes, which tend to focus on recall rather than application and have little in common with how experts go about their work in disciplines like math or history.

The teachers generated a big research question: Is using authentic assessment an effective and engaging way to provide meaningful feedback for teachers and students about growth and proficiency in a variety of learning objectives, including 21st-century skills?

Take Time to Plan

Next, teachers planned authentic assessments that would generate data for their study. For example, middle school science students created prototypes of genetically modified seeds and pitched their designs to a panel of potential investors. They had to not only understand the science of germination but also apply their knowledge and defend their thinking.

In other classes, teachers planned everything from mock trials to environmental stewardship projects to assess student learning and skill development. A shared rubric helped the teachers plan high-quality assessments.

Make Sense of Data

During the data-gathering phase, students were surveyed after each project about the value of authentic assessments versus more traditional tools like tests and quizzes. Teachers also reflected after each assessment.

“We collated the data, looked for trends, and presented them back to the faculty,” Kanter said.

Among the takeaways:

• Authentic assessment generates more meaningful feedback and more opportunities for students to apply it.
• Students consider authentic assessment more engaging, with increased opportunities to be creative, make choices, and collaborate.
• Teachers are thinking more critically about creating assessments that allow for differentiation and that are applicable to students’ everyday lives.

To make their learning public, Siena hosted a colloquium on authentic assessment for other schools in the region. The school also submitted its research as part of an accreditation process with the Middle States Association.

Strategies to Share

For other schools interested in conducting action research, Kanter highlighted three key strategies.

• Focus on areas of growth, not deficiency:  “This would have been less successful if we had said, ‘Our math scores are down. We need a new program to get scores up,’ Kanter said. “That puts the onus on teachers. Data collection could seem punitive. Instead, we focused on the way we already teach and thought about, how can we get more accurate feedback about how students are doing?”
• Foster a culture of inquiry:  Encourage teachers to ask questions, conduct individual research, and share what they learn with colleagues. “Sometimes, one person attends a summer workshop and then shares the highlights in a short presentation. That might just be a conversation, or it might be the start of a school-wide initiative,” Kanter explained. In fact, that’s exactly how the focus on authentic assessment began.
• Build structures for teacher collaboration:  Using staff meetings for shared planning and problem-solving fosters a collaborative culture. That was already in place when Siena embarked on its action research, along with informal brainstorming to support students.

For both students and staff, the deep dive into authentic assessment yielded “dramatic impact on the classroom,” Kanter added. “That’s the great part of this.”

In the past, he said, most teachers gave traditional final exams. To alleviate students’ test anxiety, teachers would support them with time for content review and strategies for study skills and test-taking.

“This year looks and feels different,” Kanter said. A week before the end of fall term, students were working hard on final products, but they weren’t cramming for exams. Teachers had time to give individual feedback to help students improve their work. “The whole climate feels way better.”

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Action research.

An Introduction to Action Research Jeanne H. Purcell, Ph.D.

 Your Options

• Review Related Literature
• Examine the Impact of an Experimental Treatment
• Monitor Change
• Identify Present Practices
• Describe Beliefs and Attitudes

Action Research Is…

• Action research is a three-step spiral process of (1) planning which involves fact-finding, (2) taking action, and (3) fact-finding about the results of the action. (Lewin, 1947)
• Action research is a process by which practitioners attempt to study their problems scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and action. (Corey, 1953).
• Action research in education is study conducted by colleagues in a school setting of the results of their activities to improve instruction. (Glickman, 1990)
• Action research is a fancy way of saying Let’s study what s happening at our school and decide how to make it a better place. (Calhoun,1994)

Conditions That Support Action Research

• A faculty where a majority of teachers wish to improve some aspect (s) of education in their school.
• Common agreement about how collective decisions will be made and implemented.
• A team that is willing to lead the initiative.
• Study groups that meet regularly.
• A basic knowledge of the action research cycle and the rationale for its use.
• Someone to provide technical assistance and/or support.

The Action Research Cycle

• Identify an area of interest/problem.
• Identify data to be collected, the format for the results, and a timeline.
• Collect and organize the data.
• Analyze and interpret the data.
• Decide upon the action to be taken.
• Evaluate the success of the action.

Collecting Data: Sources

Existing Sources

• Attendance at PTO meetings
• + and – parent communications
• Office referrals
• Special program enrollment
• Standardized scores

Inventive Sources

• Interviews with parents
• Library use, by grade, class
• Minutes of meetings
• Nature and amount of in-school assistance related to the innovation
• Number of books read
• Observation journals
• Record of peer observations
• Student journals
• Teacher journals
• Videotapes of students: whole class instruction
• Videotapes of students: Differentiated instruction
• Writing samples

Collecting Data: From Whom?

• From everyone when we are concerned about each student’s performance.
• From a sample when we need to increase our understanding while limiting our expenditure of time and energy; more in-depth interviews or observations may follow.

Collecting Data: How Often?

• At regular intervals
• At critical points

Collecting Data: Guidelines

• Use both existing and inventive data sources.
• Use multiple data sources.
• Collect data regularly.
• Seek help, if necessary.

Organizing Data

• Keep it simple.
• Disaggregate numbers from interviews and other qualitative types of data.
• Plan plenty of time to look over and organize the data.
• Seek technical assistance if needed.

Analyzing Data

• What important points do they data reveal?
• What patterns/trends do you note? What might be some possible explanations?
• Do the data vary by sources? Why might the variations exist?
• Are there any results that are different from what you expected? What might be some hypotheses to explain the difference (s)?
• What actions appear to be indicated?

Taking Action

• Do the data warrant action?
• What might se some short-term actions?
• What might be some long-term actions?
• How will we know if our actions have been effective?
• What benchmarks might we expect to see along the way to effectiveness ?

Action Plans

• Target date
• Responsibility
• Evidence of Effectiveness

Action Research Handout

Bibliography

Brubacher, J. W., Case, C. W., & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator . Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (1996). Teachers doing research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calhoun, Emily (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices . New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hubbard, R. S. & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decisions and social change. In Readings in social psychology . (Eds. T M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley). New York: Henry Holt.

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

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

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

The best way to get things accomplished is to do it yourself. This statement is utilized in corporations, community projects, and national governments. These organizations are relying on action research to cope with their continuously changing and unstable environments as they function in a more interdependent world.

In practical educational contexts, this involves using systematic inquiry and reflective practice to address real-world challenges, improve teaching and learning, enhance student engagement, and drive positive changes within the educational system.

This post outlines the definition of action research, its stages, and some examples.

Content Index

What is action research?

Stages of action research, the steps to conducting action research, examples of action research, advantages and disadvantages of action research.

Action research is a strategy that tries to find realistic solutions to organizations’ difficulties and issues. It is similar to applied research.

Action research refers basically learning by doing. First, a problem is identified, then some actions are taken to address it, then how well the efforts worked are measured, and if the results are not satisfactory, the steps are applied again.

It can be put into three different groups:

• Positivist: This type of research is also called “classical action research.” It considers research a social experiment. This research is used to test theories in the actual world.
• Interpretive: This kind of research is called “contemporary action research.” It thinks that business reality is socially made, and when doing this research, it focuses on the details of local and organizational factors.
• Critical: This action research cycle takes a critical reflection approach to corporate systems and tries to enhance them.

All research is about learning new things. Collaborative action research contributes knowledge based on investigations in particular and frequently useful circumstances. It starts with identifying a problem. After that, the research process is followed by the below stages:

Stage 1: Plan

For an action research project to go well, the researcher needs to plan it well. After coming up with an educational research topic or question after a research study, the first step is to develop an action plan to guide the research process. The research design aims to address the study’s question. The research strategy outlines what to undertake, when, and how.

Stage 2: Act

The next step is implementing the plan and gathering data. At this point, the researcher must select how to collect and organize research data . The researcher also needs to examine all tools and equipment before collecting data to ensure they are relevant, valid, and comprehensive.

Stage 3: Observe

Data observation is vital to any investigation. The action researcher needs to review the project’s goals and expectations before data observation. This is the final step before drawing conclusions and taking action.

Different kinds of graphs, charts, and networks can be used to represent the data. It assists in making judgments or progressing to the next stage of observing.

Stage 4: Reflect

This step involves applying a prospective solution and observing the results. It’s essential to see if the possible solution found through research can really solve the problem being studied.

The researcher must explore alternative ideas when the action research project’s solutions fail to solve the problem.

Action research is a systematic approach researchers, educators, and practitioners use to identify and address problems or challenges within a specific context. It involves a cyclical process of planning, implementing, reflecting, and adjusting actions based on the data collected. Here are the general steps involved in conducting an action research process:

Identify the action research question or problem

Clearly define the issue or problem you want to address through your research. It should be specific, actionable, and relevant to your working context.

Review existing knowledge

Conduct a literature review to understand what research has already been done on the topic. This will help you gain insights, identify gaps, and inform your research design.

Plan the research

Develop a research plan outlining your study’s objectives, methods, data collection tools, and timeline. Determine the scope of your research and the participants or stakeholders involved.

Collect data

Implement your research plan by collecting relevant data. This can involve various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, or focus groups. Ensure that your data collection methods align with your research objectives and allow you to gather the necessary information.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data, analyze it using appropriate qualitative or quantitative techniques. Look for patterns, themes, or trends in the data that can help you understand the problem better.

Reflect on the findings

Reflect on the analyzed data and interpret the results in the context of your research question. Consider the implications and possible solutions that emerge from the data analysis. This reflection phase is crucial for generating insights and understanding the underlying factors contributing to the problem.

Develop an action plan

Based on your analysis and reflection, develop an action plan that outlines the steps you will take to address the identified problem. The plan should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART goals). Consider involving relevant stakeholders in planning to ensure their buy-in and support.

Implement the action plan

Put your action plan into practice by implementing the identified strategies or interventions. This may involve making changes to existing practices, introducing new approaches, or testing alternative solutions. Document the implementation process and any modifications made along the way.

Evaluate and monitor progress

Continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of your actions. Collect additional data, assess the effectiveness of the interventions, and measure progress towards your goals. This evaluation will help you determine if your actions have the desired effects and inform any necessary adjustments.

Reflect and iterate

Reflect on the outcomes of your actions and the evaluation results. Consider what worked well, what did not, and why. Use this information to refine your approach, make necessary adjustments, and plan for the next cycle of action research if needed.

Remember that participatory action research is an iterative process, and multiple cycles may be required to achieve significant improvements or solutions to the identified problem. Each cycle builds on the insights gained from the previous one, fostering continuous learning and improvement.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Here are two real-life examples of action research.

Action research initiatives are frequently situation-specific. Still, other researchers can adapt the techniques. The example is from a researcher’s (Franklin, 1994) report about a project encouraging nature tourism in the Caribbean.

In 1991, this was launched to study how nature tourism may be implemented on the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean: St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

For environmental protection, a government-led action study determined that the consultation process needs to involve numerous stakeholders, including commercial enterprises.

First, two researchers undertook the study and held search conferences on each island. The search conferences resulted in suggestions and action plans for local community nature tourism sub-projects.

Several islands formed advisory groups and launched national awareness and community projects. Regional project meetings were held to discuss experiences, self-evaluations, and strategies. Creating a documentary about a local initiative helped build community. And the study was a success, leading to a number of changes in the area.

Lau and Hayward (1997) employed action research to analyze Internet-based collaborative work groups.

Over two years, the researchers facilitated three action research problem -solving cycles with 15 teachers, project personnel, and 25 health practitioners from diverse areas. The goal was to see how Internet-based communications might affect their virtual workgroup.

First, expectations were defined, technology was provided, and a bespoke workgroup system was developed. Participants suggested shorter, more dispersed training sessions with project-specific instructions.

The second phase saw the system’s complete deployment. The final cycle witnessed system stability and virtual group formation. The key lesson was that the learning curve was poorly misjudged, with frustrations only marginally met by phone-based technical help. According to the researchers, the absence of high-quality online material about community healthcare was harmful.

Role clarity, connection building, knowledge sharing, resource assistance, and experiential learning are vital for virtual group growth. More study is required on how group support systems might assist groups in engaging with their external environment and boost group members’ learning. 

Action research has both good and bad points.

• It is very flexible, so researchers can change their analyses to fit their needs and make individual changes.
• It offers a quick and easy way to solve problems that have been going on for a long time instead of complicated, long-term solutions based on complex facts.
• If It is done right, it can be very powerful because it can lead to social change and give people the tools to make that change in ways that are important to their communities.

Disadvantages

• These studies have a hard time being generalized and are hard to repeat because they are so flexible. Because the researcher has the power to draw conclusions, they are often not thought to be theoretically sound.
• Setting up an action study in an ethical way can be hard. People may feel like they have to take part or take part in a certain way.
• It is prone to research errors like selection bias , social desirability bias, and other cognitive biases.

LEARN ABOUT: Self-Selection Bias

This post discusses how action research generates knowledge, its steps, and real-life examples. It is very applicable to the field of research and has a high level of relevance. We can only state that the purpose of this research is to comprehend an issue and find a solution to it.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, like our survey software, and a library of insights for any long-term study. Go to the Insight Hub if you want to see a demo or learn more about it.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ’s)

Action research is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves identifying a problem or challenge in a practical context, implementing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, and using the findings to inform decision-making and drive positive change.

Action research can be conducted by various individuals or groups, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and educational practitioners. It is often carried out by those directly involved in the educational setting where the research takes place.

The steps of action research typically include identifying a problem, reviewing relevant literature, designing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, reflecting on findings, and implementing improvements based on the results.

MORE LIKE THIS

21 Best Customer Advocacy Software for Customers in 2024

Apr 19, 2024

10 Quantitative Data Analysis Software for Every Data Scientist

Apr 18, 2024

11 Best Enterprise Feedback Management Software in 2024

17 Best Online Reputation Management Software in 2024

Apr 17, 2024

Other categories

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

• Section 2: Home
• Developing the Quantitative Research Design
• Qualitative Descriptive Design
• Design and Development Research (DDR) For Instructional Design
• Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Action Research Resource

What is Action Research?

Considerations, creating a plan of action.

• Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate
• SAGE Research Methods
• Research Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• Dataset Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• IRB Resource Center This link opens in a new window

Action research is a qualitative method that focuses on solving problems in social systems, such as schools and other organizations. The emphasis is on solving the presenting problem by generating knowledge and taking action within the social system in which the problem is located. The goal is to generate shared knowledge of how to address the problem by bridging the theory-practice gap (Bourner & Brook, 2019). A general definition of action research is the following: “Action research brings together action and reflection, as well as theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern” (Bradbury, 2015, p. 1). Johnson (2019) defines action research in the field of education as “the process of studying a school, classroom, or teacher-learning situation with the purpose of understanding and improving the quality of actions or instruction” (p.255).

Origins of Action Research

Kurt Lewin is typically credited with being the primary developer of Action Research in the 1940s. Lewin stated that action research can “transform…unrelated individuals, frequently opposed in their outlook and their interests, into cooperative teams, not on the basis of sweetness but on the basis of readiness to face difficulties realistically, to apply honest fact-finding, and to work together to overcome them” (1946, p.211).

Sample Action Research Topics

Some sample action research topics might be the following:

• Examining how classroom teachers perceive and implement new strategies in the classroom--How is the strategy being used? How do students respond to the strategy? How does the strategy inform and change classroom practices? Does the new skill improve test scores? Do classroom teachers perceive the strategy as effective for student learning?
• Examining how students are learning a particular content or objectives--What seems to be effective in enhancing student learning? What skills need to be reinforced? How do students respond to the new content? What is the ability of students to understand the new content?
• Examining how education stakeholders (administrator, parents, teachers, students, etc.) make decisions as members of the school’s improvement team--How are different stakeholders encouraged to participate? How is power distributed? How is equity demonstrated? How is each voice valued? How are priorities and initiatives determined? How does the team evaluate its processes to determine effectiveness?
• Examining the actions that school staff take to create an inclusive and welcoming school climate--Who makes and implements the actions taken to create the school climate? Do members of the school community (teachers, staff, students) view the school climate as inclusive? Do members of the school community feel welcome in the school? How are members of the school community encouraged to become involved in school activities? What actions can school staff take to help others feel a part of the school community?
• Examining the perceptions of teachers with regard to the learning strategies that are more effective with special populations, such as special education students, English Language Learners, etc.—What strategies are perceived to be more effective? How do teachers plan instructionally for unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners? How do teachers deal with the challenges presented by unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners? What supports do teachers need (e.g., professional development, training, coaching) to more effectively deliver instruction to unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners?

Remember—The goal of action research is to find out how individuals perceive and act in a situation so the researcher can develop a plan of action to improve the educational organization. While these topics listed here can be explored using other research designs, action research is the design to use if the outcome is to develop a plan of action for addressing and improving upon a situation in the educational organization.

Considerations for Determining Whether to Use Action Research in an Applied Dissertation

• When considering action research, first determine the problem and the change that needs to occur as a result of addressing the problem (i.e., research problem and research purpose). Remember, the goal of action research is to change how individuals address a particular problem or situation in a way that results in improved practices.
• If the study will be conducted at a school site or educational organization, you may need site permission. Determine whether site permission will be given to conduct the study.
• Consider the individuals who will be part of the data collection (e.g., teachers, administrators, parents, other school staff, etc.). Will there be a representative sample willing to participate in the research?
• If students will be part of the study, does parent consent and student assent need to be obtained?
• As you develop your data collection plan, also consider the timeline for data collection. Is it feasible? For example, if you will be collecting data in a school, consider winter and summer breaks, school events, testing schedules, etc.
• As you develop your data collection plan, consult with your dissertation chair, Subject Matter Expert, NU Academic Success Center, and the NU IRB for resources and guidance.
• Action research is not an experimental design, so you are not trying to accept or reject a hypothesis. There are no independent or dependent variables. It is not generalizable to a larger setting. The goal is to understand what is occurring in the educational setting so that a plan of action can be developed for improved practices.

Considerations for Action Research

Below are some things to consider when developing your applied dissertation proposal using Action Research (adapted from Johnson, 2019):

• Research Topic and Research Problem -- Decide the topic to be studied and then identify the problem by defining the issue in the learning environment. Use references from current peer-reviewed literature for support.
• Purpose of the Study —What need to be different or improved as a result of the study?
• Research Questions —The questions developed should focus on “how” or “what” and explore individuals’ experiences, beliefs, and perceptions.
• Theoretical Framework -- What are the existing theories (theoretical framework) or concepts (conceptual framework) that can be used to support the research. How does existing theory link to what is happening in the educational environment with regard to the topic? What theories have been used to support similar topics in previous research?
• Literature Review -- Examine the literature, focusing on peer-reviewed studies published in journal within the last five years, with the exception of seminal works. What about the topic has already been explored and examined? What were the findings, implications, and limitations of previous research? What is missing from the literature on the topic?  How will your proposed research address the gap in the literature?
• Data Collection —Who will be part of the sample for data collection? What data will be collected from the individuals in the study (e.g., semi-structured interviews, surveys, etc.)? What are the educational artifacts and documents that need to be collected (e.g., teacher less plans, student portfolios, student grades, etc.)? How will they be collected and during what timeframe? (Note--A list of sample data collection methods appears under the heading of “Sample Instrumentation.”)
• Data Analysis —Determine how the data will be analyzed. Some types of analyses that are frequently used for action research include thematic analysis and content analysis.
• Implications —What conclusions can be drawn based upon the findings? How do the findings relate to the existing literature and inform theory in the field of education?
• Recommendations for Practice--Create a Plan of Action— This is a critical step in action research. A plan of action is created based upon the data analysis, findings, and implications. In the Applied Dissertation, this Plan of Action is included with the Recommendations for Practice. The includes specific steps that individuals should take to change practices; recommendations for how those changes will occur (e.g., professional development, training, school improvement planning, committees to develop guidelines and policies, curriculum review committee, etc.); and methods to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness.
• Recommendations for Research —What should future research focus on? What type of studies need to be conducted to build upon or further explore your findings.
• Professional Presentation or Defense —This is where the findings will be presented in a professional presentation or defense as the culmination of your research.

Adapted from Johnson (2019).

Considerations for Sampling and Data Collection

Below are some tips for sampling, sample size, data collection, and instrumentation for Action Research:

Sampling and Sample Size

Action research uses non-probability sampling. This is most commonly means a purposive sampling method that includes specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, convenience sampling can also be used (e.g., a teacher’s classroom).

Critical Concepts in Data Collection

Triangulation- - Dosemagen and Schwalbach (2019) discussed the importance of triangulation in Action Research which enhances the trustworthiness by providing multiple sources of data to analyze and confirm evidence for findings.

Trustworthiness —Trustworthiness assures that research findings are fulfill four critical elements—credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability. Reflect on the following: Are there multiple sources of data? How have you ensured credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability? Have the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of the study been identified and explained? Was the sample a representative sample for the study? Did any individuals leave the study before it ended? How have you controlled researcher biases and beliefs? Are you drawing conclusions that are not supported by data? Have all possible themes been considered? Have you identified other studies with similar results?

Sample Instrumentation

Below are some of the possible methods for collecting action research data:

• Pre- and Post-Surveys for students and/or staff
• Staff Perception Surveys and Questionnaires
• Semi-Structured Interviews
• Focus Groups
• Observations
• Document analysis
• Student work samples
• Classroom artifacts, such as teacher lesson plans, rubrics, checklists, etc.
• Attendance records
• Discipline data
• Journals from students and/or staff
• Portfolios from students and/or staff

A benefit of Action Research is its potential to influence educational practice. Many educators are, by nature of the profession, reflective, inquisitive, and action-oriented. The ultimate outcome of Action Research is to create a plan of action using the research findings to inform future educational practice. A Plan of Action is not meant to be a one-size fits all plan. Instead, it is mean to include specific data-driven and research-based recommendations that result from a detailed analysis of the data, the study findings, and implications of the Action Research study. An effective Plan of Action includes an evaluation component and opportunities for professional educator reflection that allows for authentic discussion aimed at continuous improvement.

When developing a Plan of Action, the following should be considered:

• How can this situation be approached differently in the future?
• What should change in terms of practice?
• What are the specific steps that individuals should take to change practices?
• What is needed to implement the changes being recommended (professional development, training, materials, resources, planning committees, school improvement planning, etc.)?
• How will the effectiveness of the implemented changes be evaluated?
• How will opportunities for professional educator reflection be built into the Action Plan?

Sample Action Research Studies

Anderson, A. J. (2020). A qualitative systematic review of youth participatory action research implementation in U.S. high schools. A merican Journal of Community Psychology, 65 (1/2), 242–257. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajcp.12389

Ayvaz, Ü., & Durmuş, S.(2021). Fostering mathematical creativity with problem posing activities: An action research with gifted students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1871187121000614&site=eds-live

Bellino, M. J. (2018). Closing information gaps in Kakuma Refugee Camp: A youth participatory action research study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62 (3/4), 492–507. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=133626988&site=eds-live

Beneyto, M., Castillo, J., Collet-Sabé, J., & Tort, A. (2019). Can schools become an inclusive space shared by all families? Learnings and debates from an action research project in Catalonia. Educational Action Research, 27 (2), 210–226. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135671904&site=eds-live

Bilican, K., Senler, B., & Karısan, D. (2021). Fostering teacher educators’ professional development through collaborative action research. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17 (2), 459–472. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=149828364&site=eds-live

Black, G. L. (2021). Implementing action research in a teacher preparation program: Opportunities and limitations. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 21 (2), 47–71. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=149682611&site=eds-live

Bozkuş, K., & Bayrak, C. (2019). The Application of the dynamic teacher professional development through experimental action research. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11 (4), 335–352. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135580911&site=eds-live

Christ, T. W. (2018). Mixed methods action research in special education: An overview of a grant-funded model demonstration project. Research in the Schools, 25( 2), 77–88. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135047248&site=eds-live

Jakhelln, R., & Pörn, M. (2019). Challenges in supporting and assessing bachelor’s theses based on action research in initial teacher education. Educational Action Research, 27 (5), 726–741. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=140234116&site=eds-live

Klima Ronen, I. (2020). Action research as a methodology for professional development in leading an educational process. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64 . https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0191491X19302159&site=eds-live

Messiou, K. (2019). Collaborative action research: facilitating inclusion in schools. Educational Action Research, 27 (2), 197–209. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135671898&site=eds-live

Mitchell, D. E. (2018). Say it loud: An action research project examining the afrivisual and africology, Looking for alternative African American community college teaching strategies. Journal of Pan African Studies, 12 (4), 364–487. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=133155045&site=eds-live

Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2018). Action research as a tool for professional development in the K-12 ELT classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 35 (2), 128–139. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=135033158&site=eds-live

Rodriguez, R., Macias, R. L., Perez-Garcia, R., Landeros, G., & Martinez, A. (2018). Action research at the intersection of structural and family violence in an immigrant Latino community: a youth-led study. Journal of Family Violence, 33 (8), 587–596. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=132323375&site=eds-live

Vaughan, M., Boerum, C., & Whitehead, L. (2019). Action research in doctoral coursework: Perceptions of independent research experiences. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13 . https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.17aa0c2976c44a0991e69b2a7b4f321&site=eds-live

Sample Journals for Action Research

Educational Action Research

Canadian Journal of Action Research

Sample Resource Videos

Call-Cummings, M. (2017). Researching racism in schools using participatory action research [Video]. Sage Research Methods  http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?URL=https://methods.sagepub.com/video/researching-racism-in-schools-using-participatory-action-research

Fine, M. (2016). Michelle Fine discusses community based participatory action research [Video]. Sage Knowledge. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?URL=https://sk-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/video/michelle-fine-discusses-community-based-participatory-action-research

Getz, C., Yamamura, E., & Tillapaugh. (2017). Action Research in Education. [Video]. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2tso4klYu8

Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of action research (3rd edition). Sage.

Bradbury, H., Lewis, R. & Embury, D.C. (2019). Education action research: With and for the next generation. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Bourner, T., & Brook, C. (2019). Comparing and contrasting action research and action learning. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage handbook of action research . Sage. https://www-doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.4135/9781473921290

Dosemagen, D.M. & Schwalback, E.M. (2019). Legitimacy of and value in action research. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Johnson, A. (2019). Action research for teacher professional development. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In G.W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics (compiled in 1948). Harper and Row.

Mertler, C. A. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of action research in education. John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/detail.action?docID=5683581

• << Previous: Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Next: Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2023 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1013605

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

How to Do Action Research in Your Classroom

You are here

This article is available as a pdf. please see the link on the right..

Action Research Plan in Education Research Paper

Description of the context for the study: qualitative research based on three different schools; one of public school, private and comment preschool. Using interview questions by analyzing the interview questions after the interview was done with the student.

Each area of study has its own body of knowledge and the study of STEM in the context of the research fits well with the qualitative research paradigm. The findings in this research are based on interpretations, personalistic, situational, and other interpretations of the knowledge and practice in the areas of investigation.

The qualitative paradigm was based on the systematic review of literature and the themes developed from the review of literature. The epistemological, theoretical, and disciplinary perspectives of qualitative research in the context of STEM activities and how the learners respond to the activities provides the rationale to use the qualitative paradigm to address the data collection and analysis. In public schools, the STEM activities are funded by the Office of Partnership Development because they recognise the need to get involved in supporting early STEM involvement among the children. On the other hand, the study of the implementation of STEM in private and comment preschool are supported by stakeholders who want to have the young child develop the skills necessary to be successful later on life in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

The focus of the study is in the development and analysis of creative and critical thinking skills among the children aged 4 and 8 years and the teaching strategies to improve their abilities. In addition, the strategy was to analyse how the STEM activities could be implemented among the kids to achieve the learner centered skill. The critical thinking skills no only boarder on the use of math and science based subjects, but covers other areas of study that includes engineering activities. Typically, most learners do not embrace or do not like the activities associated with STEM because most of the tasks are boring and uninteresting besides the children and even the adults having the perception that STEM is complicated. The study will focus on identifying the strategies to use to implement the STEM activities among the earlier learners so that they are made to appreciate the benefits of engaging in the activities earlier in life. The earlier engagement in STEM activities can be discovered and established through interviews and the responses the children and other stakeholders provide to the interviewee on how the activities help the students to develop individual skill and how such activities can be implemented by the teachers.

Here, the core issues and tools to use are the people and the responses of the children on the attitude they have developed on the earlier exposure to STEM, ability to make observation on how the children interact in the learning environment by emphasizing on observations, intuition, and empirical evidence.

For instance the most appropriate method that was used ion the study was the use of interviews. Interview questions can be analysed using the qualitative paradigm and both the aggregative data and interpretive data formed the basis of the study. Interpretive data could arise on the study because the participants who were interviewed had an experience of poor implementation of the program and the aggregative data resulted from the participants who had experienced a good program. In both cases, it was imperative to try to determine the themes that were identified by the respondents as crucial in each case of the program.

The interviewing strategy was to collect unique information that was held by the respondents, collect numerical aggregation and data about the data, and establishing what could not be observed by the researcher. It was important mix the questions to reduce boredom.

It is critical to note the nature of responses that each teacher presents and the common themes in each response. For instance, the general response to the first question is that the STEM implementation enables the teachers to develop positive attitudes towards the program when implemented at different levels.

The teachers emphasise on science and technology, but the standard elements include the mathematics as one of the subjects identified in STEM. It is possible to note that the dynamics of developing STEM is evident in the statement “we explore more and increase our focus on Engineering in the classroom”.

The STEM implementation approach focuses on the individual, collaboration, and others propose that the activities run concurrently. In each case, the mix of activities provides the activities that are done in groups as asserted in the statement that “there are also small and whole group instruction times that would be teacher-guided in which the teacher would be there to not necessarily dictate the activity, but guide, encourage, and ask open-ended questions based on the students’ leading”.

On the other hand, it is evident that there are no individual differences among the STEM research implementation strategies when implemented in groups or at the individual level. Typically, it is possible to roll out the program either on the individual level or at the level of the groups.

Reviewers were asked to assess the responses to determine the benefits that the individuals could get when STEM was implemented. It was establish that most responses agreed that the instructional strategy improves the student’s thinking and analytical skills that underpin the establishment and implementation of STEM for the children. It is worth noting that one of the respondents agreed that “building thinking skills in the students and not just in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, but also in other areas. STEM has also challenged me to think more in depth about the activities I have out in my classroom” which is the main goals of the STEM program.

In terms of passing information to parents and other stakeholders on the importance of STEM, the instructors agreed that “STEM encourages the students to build their critical thinking skills and to engage in learning through exploration, collaboration and problem solving strategies”. It is viewed as a good thing to use STEM to develop the critical thinking skills of the children and investing in them is worthwhile.

In general, the conclusion is that STEM has boosted the development of the skills of many children in the field of math, engineering, and sciences as is evident in the way the children appreciate STEM and the lifelong benefits they get when the children continue into further studies. It is important, however to note that no formal assessment is available for STEM, but “it is evident that the students are building and growing their thinking skills and problem solving skills”.

Brief introduction focusing on relevant literature

The study was based an analytical exposition of the methods used to solve the problem related to the development and implementation of STEM, which is an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics among the young children in the range of 4 and 8 years. The objectives are to provide an excellent view to understand and rich open comprehension of the implementation and the success of the program based on an analysis of the background knowledge of the early learner in STEM. In addition, the strategy involved using the instructional methods and interactions between the student and the teacher with the elements that define STEM to get the young students exposed earlier an earlier to science, engineering, and math to increase the attention of students by using strategies that fit with science, such as hands-on.

Here, the analytical problem was to determine how successful an earlier exposure to STEM could increase the knowledge and skills of the students in science, engineering, and math, leading to the overall academic development of the young student. On the other hand, it is evident that 77% of the women do not as stakeholders provide the necessary support for the children to participate in STEM. In addition, an analytic solution to the problem is also evident in the lack of motivation to get involved in the study.

However, further analysis of the literature review shows that STEM promotes integrated learning and the results include the ability to develop the mind, knowledge, and skills of the student to increase interest in the STEM subjects. The literature develops a common understanding that the STEM enables the student to develop problem solving skills. Despite that, the minority of students are women and the approach to develop the skills in STEM of the minority group are adequately provides by the teachers.

Methodology – sampling/subjects, procedures for data collection, how data will be analyzed, overall timeline

The proposed methodology is based on a qualitative research paradigm that is embedded in the systematic review of literature and interview questions to provide the responses from professional teachers on implementing STEM. It is evident that when examining the knowledge paradigm of different researchers, there is a common consensus that the qualitative paradigm fits well into the study on STEM and its application among children aged between 4 and 8 years.

The subjects who were interviewed in the study included teachers to provide the data for analysis while observations were made to determine the effects STEM on the young students. However, the criteria for sampling underpin the importance and appropriateness of the findings and how well the findings are generalizable. The qualitative paradigms requires that the sampling strategy is able to provide a sample that enables the researcher to be able to see through the eyes of the respondent, provide a detailed description of the study, establish how the social change in the context of knowledge acquisition among the students who get involved in STEM, how to increase motivation among the students involved in STEM, and the effects the study has on the skills development of the student.

It is important to note that the qualitative paradigm enables the researcher to make accurate representation of facts because the subjects in the study were not predictable, but accurate. The randomization effects were not applicable on the type of study, and probability sampling was not used and the approach made increased the reliability of the results.

The sampling strategy was based on a non-probabilistic approach that was based on the quota system that allowed the researcher to determine the characteristics of the target population and the sample. Here, the quotas were created based on the quotas that include the age, gender, and class of the student. In addition, the representativeness of the sample was based on the quota system where each subjects was taken from the three target areas of the subjects. On the other hand, the sampling strategy involved theoretical sampling because general research questions were applied on the respondents such as asking them about age, class, and general attitude towards participating in STEM. In addition, the core elements included in the study that provide the guidelines includes the ability to understand the phenomenon, which involves implementing STEM among the young children, the acquisition of enough knowledge about STEM because numbers do not make much relevance in the qualitative study.

Here, the overall time-line is 2 years because of the data collection methods. The students will be able to participate with teachers and the students collaboratively to develop the right skills and knowledge for the students that have a long term effect on the future lives.

Data collection procedure

The strategy used observations and interviews to collect primary qualitative data by paying careful attention to detail and skill to make direct observations and to interview the stakeholders. In addition to asking questions, it was deemed necessary to carry do continuous monitoring the children to understand the performance gaps and improvements, and the motivation the children developed towards getting involved on the STEM project. The activities that were evaluated to collect primary data were based on the STEM activities where each family was registered to have a hand on experience on the program. In addition, incorporating the subjects earlier in the process made it easier for the children to have earlier involvement and exposure to the activities. In addition, the caregivers and parents were involved to motivate the children to appreciate and get encouraged to participate in the program.

Parents were advised to make observations of the activities done by their children and how the children interacted in the environment of study. Observations and deductions were made on how the children interacted and performed different activities using the various materials that were availed them. In addition, each parent who had a child participating in the STEM program could be asked to appreciate and monitor the performance of the child based on the extension of the classroom activities into the homework. On the other hand, the most appropriate time was two years because the change a child undergoes when exposed to STEM does not occur immediately, but takes time.

On the other hand, interview formed the backbone of the primary data collection method because interviews produce a lot of qualitative data within a very short time. The advantages with interviews are that the researcher was able to collect the right detailed volume of data to inform the study. Discovery of how individual behave when subjected to the STEM environment, identification of the most useful part of the data collection and analysis is feasible, it is possible to add impersonal data into the study, and it enables a deeper understanding of the data collected from the study.

Data analysis

The results were then organised into themes and each category of data was investigated and interpreted according to the interrelationship that appeared among the items. The results showed that the STEM activities were incorporated in each class to enable the teachers to explore the items that had the most important effect on the knowledge and skills development activities of the children. It was realized that the children who were taken through the STEM activities were able to use different tools to express the knowledge and skills learnt and the new vocabularies while making them look at life with renewed curiosity.

It was possible for students to use different tools to make measurements of different items such as when a child encountered a challenge to measure the size of a worm. In addition, the child was able to learn by developing interest in habitats and was able to share the new findings with other students. The observations encouraged the teacher to create new strategies on how to motivate the learner to develop more interest in making new investigations.

Discussion of perceived strengths and weaknesses of proposed study

The study had weaknesses and strengths in the quest to investigate the application of STEM on public school, private and comment preschools. Among the strengths were the ability to enable the researcher to interpret the findings based on the intuition and the generality of findings on different situations that define the context of the study for students from different backgrounds. The study emphasized on empirical evidence because it was oriented on the field of study and experiential, relying on observations and on the site participation of the researcher. The study focused on the use of objects that were unique to each situation of study and the findings were generalized across different learning environments.

Each child’s unique learning activities were factored into the study and the points of view of the students and the teachers were integrated into the study in the quest to discover the most appropriate STEM implementation strategy and the best approach to motivate the learners and increase the skills and knowledge acquired in class. Other observations that were made include an increase in STEM activities among the students because most students were able to use appropriate terminologies to communicate the knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On the other hand, implementing STEM will help the students, parents, and teachers and other stakeholders to improve their attitude towards STEM careers and fields by increasing the enrollment rates of the students, increasing the rate of participation in STEM, help the teachers and students develop self-confidence in the STEM activities. STEM will help improve the careers, knowledge and skills by enabling the students to increase test scores when compared with those students, who do not attend the STEM programs, increase the general knowledge and skills in science and engineering, and increase the graduation rate of STEM students.

Investigations reveal that involvement in STEM helps students to know their strengths and weaknesses and the possibility of pursuing STEM related studies in future instead of pursuing them only to discover that STEM difficult for them in future. IN addition, children get motivated to pursue STEM related studies in future because they are able to develop increased interest in STEM at an earlier age.

Brief description of actions/changes anticipated as result of study

In summary, it was noted that certain areas of study were to be focused on to make the STEM processes for implementing STEM reliable. It was established that the transition of the new system of the students into the new realm of knowledge and skills on STEM was necessary to ensure necessary success in implementing STEM. Once the research document has been introduced into the realm of knowledge acquisition in STEM, the teacher, parents, and children will be informed of the benefits that accrue for the child and the effects such knowledge acquisition will have on the long term development of the children’s skills in STEM and practical application. The most important changes anticipated include transition from the traditional instruction methods to emphasizing on STEM. In addition, it is projected that by integrating the STEM strategy into the normal or traditional instructions methods, many young students in the USA will benefit because they will develop the desired skills and knowledge to become competent in the engineering, math, and other sciences.

In addition, the study provides pointers to the need to factor STEM access among the minority groups to enable the children and parents participate in the programs. STEM must support the racial and ethnic equality by creating more opportunities for the minority groups. It is crucial to implement STEM after school to help bridge the opportunity for the existence of the underrepresented and under-served communities on interactive levels. The recommendation after collecting and analysing data was that most of students like science after practice STEM activities in preschool through K-5 and more analysis will help to build this part of the investigation. In conclusion, it is possible to increase the motivation of young learners to pursue STEM related studies earlier in life.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, January 19). Action Research Plan in Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/action-research-plan-in-education/

"Action Research Plan in Education." IvyPanda , 19 Jan. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/action-research-plan-in-education/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Action Research Plan in Education'. 19 January.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Action Research Plan in Education." January 19, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/action-research-plan-in-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Action Research Plan in Education." January 19, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/action-research-plan-in-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Action Research Plan in Education." January 19, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/action-research-plan-in-education/.

• Introducing STEM Education to Young Students
• The Texas STEM Education Toolkit Reflection
• STEM Education: Teacher Approaches and Strategies
• How Fasion Merchandising Fits Into a STEM Education Program
• Stem Cell Research
• STEM Education: Strategies and Approaches for Teaching
• Implementation of STEM Education Policy: Challenges, Progress, and Lessons Learned
• “What’s the Fuss about Stem Cells?”
• The Research and Use of Stem Cell Embryos
• STEM (Science), Robots, Codes, Maker’s Space Overview
• American University in the Emirates' Parking Issue
• Importance of Education in the Life of People
• Pedro Martinez: Defining Equity Case
• The Orientation Events Importance
• Big Mountain High School's Change in Value System

• Short report
• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2024

A modified action framework to develop and evaluate academic-policy engagement interventions

• Petra Mäkelä   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0938-1175 1 ,
• Annette Boaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1294 2 &
• Kathryn Oliver   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5258 1  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  31 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

727 Accesses

23 Altmetric

Metrics details

There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement.

We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme.

Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.’s original framework, for example adding a domain of ‘Impacts and Sustainability’ to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge.

The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

There has been a proliferation of theories, models and frameworks relating to translation of research into practice. Few specifically relate to engagement between academia and policy.

Challenges of evidence-informed policy-making are receiving increasing attention globally. There is a growing number of academic-policy engagement interventions but a lack of published evaluations.

This article contributes a modified action framework that can be used to guide how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated, and improved, to support the use of evidence in policy decision-making.

Our contribution demonstrates the potential for modification of existing, useful frameworks instead of creating brand-new frameworks. It provides an exemplar for others who are considering when and how to modify existing frameworks to address new or expanded purposes while respecting the conceptual underpinnings of the original work.

Academic-policy engagement refers to ways that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and their staff engage with institutions responsible for policy at national, regional, county or local levels. Academic-policy engagement is intended to support the use of evidence in decision-making and in turn, improve its effectiveness, and inform the identification of barriers and facilitators in policy implementation [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Challenges of evidence-informed policy-making are receiving increasing attention globally, including the implications of differences in cultural norms and mechanisms across national contexts [ 4 , 5 ]. Although challenges faced by researchers and policy-makers have been well documented [ 6 , 7 ], there has been less focus on actions at the engagement interface. Pragmatic guidance for the development, evaluation or comparison of structured responses to the challenges of academic-policy engagement is currently lacking [ 8 , 9 ].

Academic-policy engagement exists along a continuum of approaches from linear (pushing evidence out from academia or pulling evidence into policy), relational (promoting mutual understandings and partnerships), and systems approaches (addressing identified barriers and facilitators) [ 4 ]. Each approach is underpinned by sets of beliefs, assumptions and expectations, and each raises questions for implementation and evaluation. Little is known about which academic-policy engagement interventions work in which settings, with scarce empirical evidence to inform decisions about which interventions to use, when, with whom, or why, and how organisational contexts can affect motivation and capabilities for such engagement [ 10 ]. A deeper understanding through the evaluation of engagement interventions will help to identify inhibitory and facilitatory factors, which may or may not transfer across contexts [ 11 ].

The intellectual technologies [ 12 ] of implementation science have proliferated in recent decades, including models, frameworks and theories that address research translation and acknowledge difficulties in closing the gap between research, policy and practice [ 13 ]. Frameworks may serve overlapping purposes of describing or guiding processes of translating knowledge into practice (e.g. the Quality Implementation Framework [ 14 ]); or helping to explain influences on implementation outcomes (e.g. the Theoretical Domains Framework [ 15 ]); or guiding evaluation (e.g. the RE-AIM framework [ 16 , 17 ]. Frameworks can offer an efficient way to look across diverse settings and to identify implementation differences [ 18 , 19 ]. However, the abundance of options raises its own challenges when seeking a framework for a particular purpose, and the use of a framework may mean that more weight is placed on certain aspects, leading to a partial understanding [ 13 , 17 ].

‘Action frameworks’ are predictive models that intend to organise existing knowledge and enable a logical approach for the selection, implementation and evaluation of intervention strategies, thereby facilitating the expansion of that knowledge [ 20 ]. They can guide change by informing and clarifying practical steps to follow. As flexible entities, they can be adapted to accommodate new purposes. Framework modification may include the addition of constructs or changes in language to expand applicability to a broader range of settings [ 21 ].

We sought to identify one organising framework for evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic-Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme (2021–2023), funded by Research England. The CAPE programme aimed to understand how best to support effective and sustained engagement between academics and policy professionals across the higher education sector in England [ 22 ]. We first searched the literature and identified an action framework that was originally developed between 2011 and 2013, to underpin a trial known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial) [ 20 , 23 ]. This trial evaluated strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy and to identify modifiable points for intervention.

We selected the SPIRIT framework due to its potential suitability as an initial ‘road map’ for our evaluation of academic-policy interventions in the CAPE programme. The key elements of the original framework are catalysts, organisational capacity, engagement actions, and research use. We wished to build on the framework’s embedded conceptual work, derived from literature reviews and semi-structured interviews, to identify policymakers’ views on factors that assist policy agencies’ use of research [ 20 ]. The SPIRIT framework developers defined its “locus for change” as the policy organisation ( [ 20 ], p. 151). They proposed that it could offer the beginning of a process to identify and test pathways in policy agencies’ use of evidence.

Our goal was to modify SPIRIT to accommodate a different locus for change: the engagement interface between academia and policy. Instead of imagining a linear process in which knowledge comes from researchers and is transmitted to policy professionals, we intended to extend the framework to multidirectional relational and system interfaces. We wished to include processes and influences at individual, organisational and system levels, to be relevant for HEIs and their staff, policy bodies and professionals, funders of engagement activities, and facilitatory bodies. Ultimately, we seek to address a gap in understanding how engagement strategies work, for whom, how they are facilitated, and to improve the evaluation of academic-policy engagement.

We aimed to produce a conceptually guided action framework to enable systematic evaluation of interventions intending to support academic-policy engagement.

We used a pragmatic combination of processes for framework modification during our evaluation activities in the CAPE programme [ 22 ]. The CAPE programme included a range of interventions: seed funding for academic and policy professional collaboration in policy-focused projects, fellowships for academic placements in policy settings, or for policy professionals with HEI staff, training for policy professionals, and a range of knowledge exchange events for HEI staff and policy professionals. We modified the SPIRIT framework through iterative processes shown in Table  1 , including reviews of literature; consultations with HEI staff and policy professionals across a range of policy contexts and geographic settings in England, through the CAPE programme; and piloting, refining and seeking feedback from stakeholders in academic-policy engagement.

A number of characteristics of the original SPIRIT framework could be applied to academic-policy engagement. While keeping the core domains, we modified the framework to capture dynamics of engagement at multiple academic and policy levels (individuals, organisations and system), extending beyond the original unidirectional focus on policy agencies’ use of research. Components of the original framework, the need for modifications, and their corresponding action-oriented implications are shown in Table  2 . We added a new domain, ‘Impacts and Sustainability’, to consider transforming and enduring aspects at the engagement interface. The modified action framework is shown in Fig.  1 .

SPIRIT Action Framework Modified for Academic-Policy Engagement Interventions (SPIRIT-ME), adapted with permission from the Sax Institute. Legend: The framework acknowledges that elements in each domain may influence other elements through mechanisms of action and that these do not necessarily flow through the framework in a ‘pipeline’ sequence. Mechanisms of action are processes through which engagement strategies operate to achieve desired outcomes. They might rely on influencing factors, catalysts, an aspect of an intervention action, or a combination of elements

Identifying relevant theories or models for missing elements

Catalysts and capacity.

Within our evaluation of academic-policy interventions, we identified a need to develop the original domain of catalysts beyond ‘policy/programme need for research’ and ‘new research with potential policy relevance’. Redman et al. characterised a catalyst as “a need for information to answer a particular problem in policy or program design, or to assist in supporting a case for funding” in the original framework (p. 149). We expanded this “need for information” to a perceived need for engagement, by either HEI staff or policy professionals, linking to the potential value they perceived in engaging. Specifically, there was a need to consider catalysts at the level of individual engagement, for example HEI staff wanting research to have real-world impact, or policy professionals’ desires to improve decision-making in policy, where productive interactions between academic and policy stakeholders are “necessary interim steps in the process that lead to societal impact” ( [ 24 ], p. 214). The catalyst domain expands the original emphasis on a need for research, to take account of challenges to be overcome by both the academic and policy communities in knowing how, and with whom, to engage and collaborate with [ 25 ].

We used a model proposing that there are three components for any behaviour: capability, opportunity and motivation, which is known as the COM-B model [ 26 ]. Informed by CAPE evaluation activities and our discussions with stakeholders, we mapped the opportunity and motivation constructs into the ‘catalysts’ domain of the original framework. Opportunity is an attribute of the system that can facilitate engagement. It may be a tangible factor such as the availability of seed funding, or a perceived social opportunity such as institutional support for engagement activities. Opportunity can act at the macro level of systems and organisational structures. Motivation acts at the micro level, deriving from an individual’s mental processes that stimulate and direct their behaviours; in this case, taking part in academic-policy engagement actions. The COM-B model distinguishes between reflective motivation through conscious planning and automatic motivation that may be instinctive or affective [ 26 ].

We presented an early application of the COM-B model to catalysts for engagement at an academic conference, enabling an informal exploration of attendees’ subjective views on the clarity and appropriateness, when developing the framework. This application introduces possibilities for intervention development and support by highlighting ‘opportunities’ and ‘motivations’ as key catalysts in the modified framework.

Within the ‘capacity’ domain, we retained the original levels of individuals, organisations and systems. We introduced individual capability as a construct from the COM-B model, describing knowledge, skills and abilities to generate behaviour change as a precursor of academic-policy engagement. This reframing extends the applicability to HEI staff as well as policy professionals. It brings attention to different starting conditions for individuals, such as capabilities developed through previous experience, which can link with social opportunity (for example, through training or support) as a catalyst.

Engagement actions

We identified a need to modify the original domain ‘engagement actions’ to extend the focus beyond the use of research. We added three categories of engagement actions described by Best and Holmes [ 27 ]: linear, relational, and systems. These categories were further specified through a systematic mapping of international organisations’ academic-policy engagement activities [ 5 ]. This framework modification expands the domain to encompass: (i) linear ‘push’ of evidence from academia or ‘pull’ of evidence into policy agencies; (ii) relational approaches focused on academic-policy-maker collaboration; and (iii) systems’ strategies to facilitate engagement for example through strategic leadership, rewards or incentives [ 5 ].

We retained the elements in the original framework’s ‘outcomes’ domain (instrumental, tactical, conceptual and imposed), which we found could apply to outcomes of engagement as well as research use. For example, discussions between a policy professional and a range of academics could lead to a conceptual outcome by considering an issue through different disciplinary lenses. We expanded these elements by drawing on literature on engagement outcomes [ 28 ] and through sense-checking with stakeholders in CAPE. We added capacity-building (changes to skills and expertise), connectivity (changes to the number and quality of relationships), and changes in organisational culture or attitude change towards engagement.

Impacts and sustainability

The original framework contained endpoints described as: ‘Better health system and health outcomes’ and ‘Research-informed health policy and policy documents’. For modification beyond health contexts and to encompass broader intentions of academic-policy engagement, we replaced these elements with a new domain of ‘Impacts and sustainability’. This domain captures the continued activities required in achievement of desirable outcomes [ 29 ]. The modification allows consideration of sustainability in relation to previous stages of engagement interventions, through the identification of beneficial effects that are sustained (or not), in which ways, and for whom. Following Borst [ 30 ], we propose a shift from the expectation that ‘sustainability’ will be a fixed endpoint. Instead, we emphasise the maintenance work needed over time, to sustain productive engagement.

Influences and facilitators

We modified the overarching ‘Policy influences’ (such as public opinion and media) in the original framework, to align with factors influencing academic-policy engagement beyond policy agencies’ use of research. We included influences at the level of the individual (for example, individual moral discretion [ 31 ]), the organisation (for example, managerial practices [ 31 ]) and the system (for example, career incentives [ 32 ]). Each of these processes takes place in the broader context of social, policy and financial environments (that is, potential sources of funding for engagement actions) [ 29 ].

We modified the domain ‘Reservoir of relevant and reliable research’ underpinning the original framework, replacing it with ‘Reservoir of people skills’, to emphasise intangible facilitatory work at the engagement interface, in place of concrete research outputs. We used the ‘Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services’ (PARiHS) framework [ 33 , 34 ], which gives explicit consideration to facilitation mechanisms for researchers and policy-makers [ 13 ] . Here, facilitation expertise includes mechanisms that focus on particular goals (task-oriented facilitation) or enable changes in ways of working (holistic-oriented facilitation). Task-orientated facilitation skills might include, for example, the provision of contacts, practical help or project management skills, while holistic-oriented facilitation involves building and sustaining partnerships or support skills’ development across a range of capabilities. These conceptualisations aligned with our consultations with facilitators of engagement in CAPE. We further extended these to include aspects identified in our evaluation activities: strategic planning, contextual awareness and entrepreneurial orientation.

Piloting and refining the modified framework through stakeholder engagement

We piloted an early version of the modified framework to develop a survey for all CAPE programme participants. During this pilot stage, we sought feedback from the CAPE delivery team members across HEI and policy contexts in England. CAPE delivery team members are based at five collaborating universities with partners in the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) and Government Office for Science (GO-Science), and Nesta (a British foundation that supports innovation). The HEI members include academics and professional services knowledge mobilisation staff, responsible for leading and coordinating CAPE activities. The delivery team comprised approximately 15–20 individuals (with some fluctuations according to individual availabilities).

We assessed appropriateness and utility, refined terminology, added domain elements and explored nuances. For example, stakeholders considered the multi-layered possibilities within the domain ‘capacity’, where some HEI or policy departments may demonstrate a belief that it is important to use research in policy, but this might not be the perception of the organisation as a whole. We also sought stakeholders’ views on the utility of the new domains, for example, the identification of facilitator expertise such as acting as a knowledge broker or intermediary; providing training, advice or guidance; facilitating engagement opportunities; creating engagement programmes; and sustainability of engagement that could be conceptualised at multiple levels: personally, in processes or through systems.

Testing against criteria for useful action framework

The modified framework fulfils the properties of a useful action framework [ 20 ]:

It has a clearly articulated purpose: development and evaluation of academic-policy engagement interventions through linear, relational and/or system approaches. It has identified loci for change, at the level of the individual, the organisation or system.

It has been informed by existing understandings, including conceptual work of the original SPIRIT framework, conceptual models identified from the literature, published empirical findings, understandings from consultation with stakeholders, and evaluation activities in CAPE.

It can be applied to the development, implementation and evaluation of targeted academic-policy engagement actions, the selection of points for intervention and identification of potential outcomes, including the work of sustaining them and unanticipated consequences.

It provides a structure to build knowledge by guiding the generation of hypotheses about mechanisms of action in academic-policy engagement interventions, or by adapting the framework further through application in practice.

The proliferation of frameworks to articulate processes of research translation reveals a need for their adaptation when applied in specific contexts. The majority of models in implementation science relate to translation of research into practice. By contrast, our focus was on engagement between academia and policy. There are a growing number of academic-policy engagement interventions but a lack of published evaluations [ 10 ].

Our framework modification provides an exemplar for others who are considering how to adapt existing conceptual frameworks to address new or expanded purposes. Field et al. identified the multiple, idiosyncratic ways that the Knowledge to Action Framework has been applied in practice, demonstrating its ‘informal’ adaptability to different healthcare settings and topics [ 35 ]. Others have reported on specific processes for framework refinement or extension. Wiltsey Stirman et al. adopted a framework that characterised forms of intervention modification, using a “pragmatic, multifaceted approach” ( [ 36 ], p.2). The authors later used the modified version as a foundation to build a further framework to encompass implementation strategies in a range of settings [ 21 ]. Oiumet et al. used the approach of borrowing from a different disciplinary field for framework adaptation, by using a model of absorptive capacity from management science to develop a conceptual framework for civil servants’ absorption of research knowledge [ 37 ].

We also took the approach of “adapting the tools we think with” ( [ 38 ], p.305) during our evaluation activities on the CAPE programme. Our conceptual modifications align with the literature on motivation and entrepreneurial orientation in determining policy-makers’ and researchers’ intentions to carry out engagement in addition to ‘usual’ roles [ 39 , 40 ]. Our framework offers an enabler for academic-policy engagement endeavours, by providing a structure for approaches beyond the linear transfer of information, emphasising the role of multidirectional relational activities, and the importance of their facilitation and maintenance. The framework emphasises the relationship between individuals’ and groups’ actions, and the social contexts in which these are embedded. It offers additional value by capturing the organisational and systems level factors that influence evidence-informed policymaking, incorporating the dynamic features of contexts shaping engagement and research use.

Conclusions

Our modifications extend the original SPIRIT framework’s focus on policy agencies’ use of research, to encompass dynamic academic-policy engagement at the levels of individuals, organisations and systems. Informed by the knowledge and experiences of policy professionals, HEI staff and knowledge mobilisers, it is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts and functions in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, and it fulfils Redman et al.’s criteria as a useful action framework [ 20 ].

We are testing the ‘SPIRIT-Modified for Engagement’ framework (SPIRIT-ME) through our ongoing evaluation of academic-policy engagement activities. Further empirical research is needed to explore how the framework may capture ‘additionality’, that is, to identify what is achieved through engagement actions in addition to what would have happened anyway, including long-term changes in strategic behaviours or capabilities [ 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Application of the modified framework in practice will highlight its strengths and limitations, to inform further iterative development and adaptation.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Stewart R, Dayal H, Langer L, van Rooyen C. Transforming evidence for policy: do we have the evidence generation house in order? Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9(1):1–5.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sanderson I. Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and evidence-based policy making. Policy Polit. 2006;34(1):115–32.

Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLOS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bonell C, Meiksin R, Mays N, Petticrew M, McKee M. Defending evidence informed policy making from ideological attack. BMJ. 2018;10(362):k3827.

Hopkins A, Oliver K, Boaz A, Guillot-Wright S, Cairney P. Are research-policy engagement activities informed by policy theory and evidence? 7 challenges to the UK impact agenda. Policy Des Pract. 2021;4(3):341–56.

Google Scholar  

Head BW. Toward More “Evidence-Informed” Policy Making? Public Adm Rev. 2016;76(3):472–84.

Walker LA, Lawrence NS, Chambers CD, Wood M, Barnett J, Durrant H, et al. Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0214136.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Graham ID, Tetroe J, Group the KT. Planned action theories. In: Knowledge Translation in Health Care. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2013. p. 277–87. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118413555.ch26 Cited 2023 Nov 1

Davies HT, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015. (Health Services and Delivery Research). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299400/ Cited 2023 Nov 1

Oliver K, Hopkins A, Boaz A, Guillot-Wright S, Cairney P. What works to promote research-policy engagement? Evid Policy. 2022;18(4):691–713.

Nelson JP, Lindsay S, Bozeman B. The last 20 years of empirical research on government utilization of academic social science research: a state-of-the-art literature review. Adm Soc. 2023;28:00953997231172923.

Bell D. Technology, nature and society: the vicissitudes of three world views and the confusion of realms. Am Sch. 1973;42:385–404.

Milat AJ, Li B. Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice. Public Health Res Pract. 2017; Available from: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-02/apo-nid74420.pdf Cited 2023 Nov 1

Meyers DC, Durlak JA, Wandersman A. The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50(3–4):462–80.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):37.

Glasgow RE, Battaglia C, McCreight M, Ayele RA, Rabin BA. Making implementation science more rapid: use of the RE-AIM framework for mid-course adaptations across five health services research projects in the veterans health administration. Front Public Health. 2020;8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00194 Cited 2023 Jun 13

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci IS. 2015 Apr 21 10. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406164/ Cited 2020 May 4

Sheth A, Sinfield JV. An analytical framework to compare innovation strategies and identify simple rules. Technovation. 2022;1(115):102534.

Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Haines ER, Alexis Kirk M, Leeman J, et al. Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):124.

Redman S, Turner T, Davies H, Williamson A, Haynes A, Brennan S, et al. The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;136:147–55.

Miller CJ, Barnett ML, Baumann AA, Gutner CA, Wiltsey-Stirman S. The FRAME-IS: a framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):36.

CAPE. CAPE. 2021. CAPE Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement. Available from: https://www.cape.ac.uk/ Cited 2021 Aug 3

CIPHER Investigators. Supporting policy in health with research: an intervention trial (SPIRIT)—protocol for a stepped wedge trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e005293.

Spaapen J, Van Drooge L. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):211–8.

Williams C, Pettman T, Goodwin-Smith I, Tefera YM, Hanifie S, Baldock K. Experiences of research-policy engagement in policymaking processes. Public Health Res Pract. 2023. Online early publication. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp33232308 .

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.

Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2010;6(2):145–59.

Edwards DM, Meagher LR. A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study. For Policy Econ. 2020;1(114):101975.

Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(11):2059–67.

Borst RAJ, Wehrens R, Bal R, Kok MO. From sustainability to sustaining work: What do actors do to sustain knowledge translation platforms? Soc Sci Med. 2022;1(296):114735.

Zacka B. When the state meets the street: public service and moral agency. Harvard university press; 2017. Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3KdFDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=zacka+when+the+street&ots=x93YEHPKhl&sig=9yXKlQiFZ0XblHrbYKzvAMwNWT4 Cited 2023 Nov 28

Torrance H. The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: processes, consequences, and incentives to engage. Qual Inq. 2020;26(7):771–9.

Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework—a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19(4):297–304.

Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ. A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):99.

Field B, Booth A, Ilott I, Gerrish K. Using the knowledge to action framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):172.

Wiltsey Stirman S, Baumann AA, Miller CJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):58.

Ouimet M, Landry R, Ziam S, Bédard PO. The absorption of research knowledge by public civil servants. Evid Policy. 2009;5(4):331–50.

Martin D, Spink MJ, Pereira PPG. Multiple bodies, political ontologies and the logic of care: an interview with Annemarie Mol. Interface - Comun Saúde Educ. 2018;22:295–305.

Sajadi HS, Majdzadeh R, Ehsani-Chimeh E, Yazdizadeh B, Nikooee S, Pourabbasi A, et al. Policy options to increase motivation for improving evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):91.

Athreye S, Sengupta A, Odetunde OJ. Academic entrepreneurial engagement with weak institutional support: roles of motivation, intention and perceptions. Stud High Educ. 2023;48(5):683–94.

Bamford D, Reid I, Forrester P, Dehe B, Bamford J, Papalexi M. An empirical investigation into UK university–industry collaboration: the development of an impact framework. J Technol Transf. 2023 Nov 13; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-023-10043-9 Cited 2023 Dec 20

McPherson AH, McDonald SM. Measuring the outcomes and impacts of innovation interventions assessing the role of additionality. Int J Technol Policy Manag. 2010;10(1–2):137–56.

Hind J. Additionality: a useful way to construct the counterfactual qualitatively? Eval J Australas. 2010;10(1):28–35.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the CAPE Programme Delivery Group members, for many discussions throughout this work. Our thanks also go to the Sax Institute, Australia (where the original SPIRIT framework was developed), for reviewing and providing helpful feedback on the article. We also thank our reviewers who made very constructive suggestions, which have strengthened and clarified our article.

The evaluation of the CAPE programme, referred to in this report, was funded by Research England. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, analysis, interpretation or writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, Kings Cross, London, WC1H 9SH, UK

Petra Mäkelä & Kathryn Oliver

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, The Policy Institute, Virginia Woolf Building, Kings College London, 22 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6LE, UK

Annette Boaz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PM conceptualised the modification of the framework reported in this work. All authors made substantial contributions to the design of the work. PM drafted the initial manuscript. AB and KO contributed to revisions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Mäkelä .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was granted for the overarching CAPE evaluation by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (reference 26347).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mäkelä, P., Boaz, A. & Oliver, K. A modified action framework to develop and evaluate academic-policy engagement interventions. Implementation Sci 19 , 31 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01359-7

Download citation

Received : 09 January 2024

Accepted : 20 March 2024

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01359-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-informed policy
• Academic-policy engagement
• Framework modification

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Part 1. Overview Information

National Institutes of Health ( NIH )

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ( NHLBI )

National Institute on Aging ( NIA )

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ( NIAAA )

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID )

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases ( NIAMS )

February 14, 2024 - Participation Added ( N0T-HD-24-007 ) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child and Human Development ( NICHD )

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders ( NIDCD )

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research ( NIDCR )

National Institute on Drug Abuse ( NIDA )

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS )

National Institute of General Medical Sciences ( NIGMS )

National Institute of Mental Health ( NIMH )

National Institute of Nursing Research ( NINR )

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences ( NCATS )

National Center of Complementary and Integrative Health ( NCCIH )

All applications to this funding opportunity announcement should fall within the mission of the Institutes/Centers. The following NIH Offices may co-fund applications assigned to those Institutes/Centers.

Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, Office of Disease Prevention ( ODP )

Office of Research on Women's Health ( ORWH )

UC2 High Impact Research and Research Infrastructure Cooperative Agreement Programs

• March 20, 2024 - Notice of Informational Webinar for PAR-23-144, STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions (RLIs) (UC2 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed). See Notice NOT-MD-24-011
• February 14, 2024 - Notice of NICHD Participation in PAR-23-144 "Strengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions"). See Notice NOT-HD-24-007
• August 31, 2023 - Notice of Correction to Eligibility Criteria of PAR-23-144, STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions (RLIs) (UC2). See Notice NOT-MD-23-018
• May 12, 2023 - Notice of Participation of the NIAAA in PAR-23-144. See Notice NOT-AA-23-012 .
• April 25, 2023 - Notice of NCCIH Participation in PAR-23-144, "STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): Structured Institutional Needs Assessment and Action Plan Development for Resource Limited Institutions (RLIs) (UC2 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed). See Notice NOT-AT-24-004
• August 5, 2022 - Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy - see Notice NOT-OD-22-189 .
• August 8, 2022 - New NIH "FORMS-H" Grant Application Forms and Instructions Coming for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2023 - See Notice NOT-OD-22-195 .
• August 31, 2022 - Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023 - See Notice NOT-OD-22-198 .

See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility .

The STrengthening Research Opportunities for NIH Grants (STRONG): The STRONG-RLI program will support research capacity needs assessments by eligible Resource-Limited Institutions (RLIs). The program will also support the recipient institutions to use the results of the assessments to develop action plans for how to meet the identified needs.

RLIs are defined as institutions with a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research that award degrees in the health professions (and in STEM fields and social and behavioral sciences) and have received an average of $0 to $25 million per year (total costs) of NIH Research Project Grant (RPG) support for the past three fiscal years.

August 18, 2023

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

Not Applicable

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV . When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. notice of funding opportunity description.

Purpose: The purpose of the STRONG-RLI Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is to invite applications to conduct biomedical research capacity needs assessments by Resource-Limited Institutions (RLIs) and then to use the results of the assessments to create action plans for meeting identified needs. The program’s goal is to increase competitiveness in the biomedical research enterprise and foster institutional environments conducive to research career development. Awards are intended to support RLIs in analyzing their institutional research capacity needs and strengths. Resource-Limited Institutions (RLIs) are defined for this NOFO as institutions with a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research that award degrees in the health professions or the sciences related to health, in STEM fields including social and behavioral sciences, and have received an average of $0 to $25 million (total costs) per year of NIH research project grant (RPG) support for the past three fiscal years (as defined in Section III -Eligibility).

Background:

NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds who will help to further NIH's mission (see NOT-OD-20-031 ). NIH recognizes the importance of diversity in biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences (collectively termed "biomedical") research. This includes the diversification of NIH-funded institutions, where researchers with a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints can bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise to address complex scientific problems.

RLIs, as defined below, play an important role in supporting scientific research, particularly on diseases or conditions that disproportionately impact racial ethnic minority groups and other U.S. populations that experience health disparities. Although these institutions are uniquely positioned to engage underserved populations in research and in the translation of research advances into culturally competent, measurable and sustained improvements in health outcomes, they may benefit from enhancing their capacity to conduct and sustain cutting-edge health-related research.

NIH is committed to assisting RLIs in building institutional research capacity. Scientists at RLIs are critical to advancing knowledge in the biomedical research enterprise. NIH has many programs designed to support researchers at RLIs and broaden the participation of researchers through inclusive excellence across regions, institutions, and demographic groups. The role of RLIs in the nation’s overall competitiveness in research is integrally related to current resources, departmental and disciplinary strengths and capabilities, and campus research support systems and infrastructure. It is critical that RLIs recognize and utilize their research and organizational capabilities so they can leverage existing strengths and develop strategic approaches in areas that require additional attention. Structured needs assessments to examine research and organizational capabilities can offer metrics for short-term/long-term action plans. These assessments will enable institutions to develop benchmarks and action items to increase their competitiveness for NIH, Federal, and other funding opportunities.

RLIs face unique challenges depending on the institution type, resources, infrastructure, and policies as they seek to acquire NIH or other federal agency funding. The areas at RLIs that need to be identified and addressed to reduce the barriers to scientific advancement and increase independent research funding can best be determined by the institution itself. A fundamental principle for organizational development and change is the use of a structured assessment to understand these barriers.

This Funding Opportunity will provide resources to the institutions to 1) conduct the assessment of research infrastructure and other requirements that will enhance administrative and research resources, institutional policies, and expanded opportunities for faculty and students in the biomedical research enterprise; and 2) Use the results of these institutional assessments to develop action plans that will support the conduct of high-quality biomedical research.

Program Objectives:

The purpose of this NIH-wide initiative, STRONG-RLI, is to support research active RLIs to;1. conduct rigorous research capacity needs assessments.2. use the results of the assessments to develop action plans for how to meet the identified needs.

Because of the significant variability in the types of RLIs, two separate categories have been created for this initiative. Please refer to Section III for eligibility criteria for RLIs.

The two categories of research active RLIs are defined in Section III of the NOFO:

1) Low Research Active (LRA) : An RLI that is an undergraduate or graduate degree granting institution and has had less than six million dollars (total costs) in NIH research project grant (RPG) support per year in three of the last five years. In addition, undergraduate granting institutions must have at least 35% of undergraduate students supported by Pell grants.

2) High Research Active (HRA) : An RLI that grants doctoral degrees and has had between six million and 25 million dollars (total costs) in NIH RPG support per year in three of the last five years.

Both LRA and HRA RLIs must have a historical mission to support underrepresented groups in biomedical sciences. Each institution should describe the specific category into which they fit and provide documentation to verify those requirements.

Each RLI will provide details on how they plan to conduct their needs assessments and create/use/adapt/ instruments to study research capacity at the institution. Please note that institutional climate or culture assessment is not a priority for this funding announcement.

As part of the funding announcement , the recipient institutions are expected to use the results of needs assessments to develop action plans for short term and long term goals, to meet the identified needs . Applicants are encouraged to provide detailed approaches for conducting the needs assessment and action plan development. The action plan should include identification of possible sources of funding for increasing research capacity. The implementation of the action plan is beyond the scope of this funding opportunity.

A. Institutional Needs-Assessment for research capacity

NIH recognizes and values the heterogeneity in institutional settings and the students they serve. Applicants must describe their distinctive biomedical research and research training environment and the current services to support them.

Applicants for this needs assessment can use any available tools, or adapt existing tools, to fit their context and needs.

B. Development of Institutional Action Plans

• After completion of the needs assessment, the recipient institutions are expected to develop an action plan. The Institutional Action Plan for research capacity is intended to serve as a roadmap for enhancing the infrastructure and capacity at the applicant institution.
• The outcomes of the needs assessment should determine the capacity building interventions that the institution can undertake to strengthen the institutional framework and research capacity. The Institutional Action Plan that will be developed is expected to be supported by an institutional leader, e.g., the Provost or President (see Letters of Support).

C. Needs assessment topics may include (but are not limited to):

The institution will determine the needs assessment foci but may include broad categories such as administrative/research/student/faculty.

Administrative topics may include -

• Establishing or enhancing the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP), examining efficiencies and staffing requirements and personnel needs for administrative support
• Available resources for effective business practices, automation, information dissemination, documentation and tracking progress for research activities,
• Process management and process improvement for grant application, grant award, and grant administration.

Research topics may include-

• Research infrastructure may include physical research facilities, lab equipment, and computing resources, core facility for technology, support staff, professional development, laboratories. Appropriate physical research facilities and skilled research support to enable competitiveness.
• Research readiness in areas, such as basic, behavioral or clinical research, grantsmanship support, seminars and workshops for grant writing, for sharing research ideas to enhance knowledge in the field. Potential and current scientific research areas of interest.
• Capacity to conduct Human Subjects Research
• Capacity for Community Engagement research
• Partnerships/ collaboration with other academic institutions, the public sector, and community-based organizations that are sustainable and equitable

Student and faculty topics may include-

• Training needs, Mentoring/Sponsorship, faculty development.
• Student resources for research, support for research experiences, and for post-bac and graduate career progression in biomedical research and in STEM topics
• Research staff recruitment and benefits packages, retention bonuses,
• Faculty teaching workloads that allow time for research pursuits, and department/college-based research staff and administrative support
• Institutional policies for assessment of teaching versus research assignments and support
• Tenure evaluations of faculty services for research, committee, community engagement, etc., protected time for research program development

Technical Assistance Webinar:

NIH will conduct a Technical Assistance Webinar for prospective applicants on July 21st from 2-3.30pm EST. Please join the webinar using the link below:

Join Zoom Meeting https://nih.zoomgov.com/j/1614627302?pwd=RmVXc0RjWjV2WTZsUzd1WmFSWU1NZz09&from=addon Meeting ID: 161 462 7302 Passcode: 919936 One tap mobile +16692545252,,1614627302#,,,,*919936# US (San Jose) +16468287666,,1614627302#,,,,*919936# US (New York)

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Section II. Award Information

Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, NIH scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities. See Section VI.2 for additional information about the substantial involvement for this FOA.

The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Application budgets for direct costs should not exceed $250,000/year.

The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is three years

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

For this funding opportunity, an applicant must be a Resource-Limited Institution (RLI), defined as an institution with a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations that awards degrees in the health professions (and related sciences) and has received an average of $0 to $25 million per year (total costs) of NIH Research Project Grants (RPG) support for the past three fiscal years.

A mission to serve historically underrepresented populations may be demonstrated by a documented historical and current mission to educate students from any of the populations that have been identified as underrepresented in biomedical research as defined by the National Science Foundation NSF, see http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ ) (i.e., African Americans or Blacks, Hispanic or Latino Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, U.S. Pacific Islanders, and persons with disabilities) or by a documented record of recruiting, training and/or educating, and graduating underrepresented students as defined by NSF (see above), which has resulted in increasing the institution's contribution to the national pool of graduates from underrepresented backgrounds who pursue biomedical research careers.

RLIs, as defined above, are classified into the following two categories for this opportunity:

Institutional letters will attest to the category of the institution whether they are LRA or HRA and provide information to verify which can be included as an attachment.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are not eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , are not allowed.

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities , NOT-OD-22-019 .

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

2. Cost Sharing

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique UEI or NIH IPF number) is allowed

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application . This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications ).

Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique UEI number or NIH IPF number) is allowed.

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Letter of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information , prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Yujing Liu, MD, PhD National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Telephone: 301-827-7815 Email: [email protected]

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Travel costs for attending any in-person meetings and STRONG Executive Steering Committee (SESC) meetings must be included.

Funds may not be used for:

• Research infrastructure (such as laboratory supplies, laboratory equipment)
• Alterations or renovations
• Research projects or pilot projects

R&R Subaward Budget

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

PHS 398 Research Plan

Research Strategy:

Significance

Explain the needs for institutional research capacity and importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress that the proposed project addresses. Describe the benefits if the proposed aims are achieved with respect to enhanced biomedical research capacity.

Applicants should address the innovative aspects of the proposed needs assessment plans for research capacity. For this program, innovation is considered the use of existing products, tools or processes or creating or adapting evidence-based tools to fit the context and needs of the institutions.

A. Institutional Needs-Assessment for research capacity section describe:

• Physical research facility, research faculty support from institution, faculty teaching workload, human resources, Sponsored program
• Applicant must describe current methods of measuring student/faculty outcomes to take into consideration institutional missions, faculty investment, student populations, student needs, and institutional resource constraints.
• Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level
• The types of research facilities available for biomedical research and research training.
• The needs for research infrastructure to conduct biomedical, behavioral or clinical research, potential and current scientific research areas of interest.
• List and describe the outcomes of any capacity-building or infrastructure grants the institution has received over the past ten years, including the source and total costs of each award.
• The investigative team and their relevant expertise in conducting a needs assessment
• Student enrollment in the biomedical areas, including the number and percentage of undergraduate and graduate students, and the enrollment of students who are Pell-grant eligible (for LRA applications); and
• The current level of student and faculty participation in research.
• Describe the sponsored programs administration and how it will inform the needs assessment. The types of services provided by the existing sponsored projects administration (or similar entity). Current levels of sponsored programs productivity (e.g., number of applications submitted, number of applications funded, number of subcontracts).

Describe the approaches for developing an Institutional Action Plan after completing needs assessment for research capacity. The Institutional Action Plan for research capacity is intended to serve as a roadmap for enhancing the infrastructure and capacity at the applicant institution. This section of the application should describe steps that will be undertaken to ensure identified needs assessment activities lead to action plans for the long-term strengthening of research capacity. It must include an institutional commitment to achieving the goals and objectives of the proposed project and activities signed by institutional leadership (e.g., President, Provost, and Deans (see Letters of Support).

C. Governance and structure of steering committees

The Steering Committee (SC) will serve as the primary governing and oversight board for the cooperative agreement funded under this NOFO.

• Describe the composition and the activities of the steering committee. Describe the desired expertise of its members. Include the frequency of meetings and any other relevant information.
• The membership of the SC consists of the PD(s)/PI(s), the NIH Project Coordinator, and any additional stake holders deemed necessary.

Timeline and Milestones:

Describe the timeline for the needs assessment and action plan activities. The timeline should be realistic given the time needed to develop the approaches/tools and collect the proposed data. Describe how the program goals/aims will be aligned with milestones and metrics.

Letters of Support: Provide letters of support for the proposed needs assessment activities following instructions in the SF424 Application Guide.

A. Institutional Eligibility Letter (1-page maximum). S ubmit a letter from the Provost or similar official with institution-wide responsibility that certify that the applicant organization qualifies as one of the following two categories of research active RLI specified in this NOFO:

A mission to serve historically underrepresented populations may be demonstrated by a documented historical and current mission to educate students from underrepresented populations in biomedical research.

The two categories of research active RLIs are:

1) Low Research Active (LRA): An RLI that is an undergraduate or graduate degree granting institution, with at least 35% of undergraduate students supported by Pell grants, and that has had less than six million dollars in NIH research project grant (RPG) support per year in three of the last five years.

2) High Research Active (HRA): An RLI that grants doctoral degrees and has had less than 25 million dollars in NIH RPG support in three of the last five years.

B. Institutional Commitment Letter. The application must include an Institutional Commitment Letter from the President or designated high-ranking official such as the Provost, Vice President or Dean. Describe how the proposed project aligns with the broad institutional vision for enhancing biomedical research. The letter should include a commitment to achieving the goals and objectives of the proposed project and activities.

The letters of support must be included with the application. Applications which lack this letter will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn and will not be reviewed.

Resource Sharing Plan : Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The following modifications also apply:

Generally, Resource Sharing Plans are expected, but they are not applicable for this FOA.

• A Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this NOFO.

Appendix: Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

• No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form . Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed.

In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NIMHD Referral Office by email at [email protected] when the application has been submitted. Please include the NOFO number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

In addition, specific to this NOFO:

How well does the application provide a vision for how the project will serve as a foundation for future research capacity building? To what degree the application describes clear pathways between the need assessment and action plan development research activities and future research efforts? To what extent is the proposed project likely to enhance institutional research capacity to conduct biomedical research?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

To what extent do the PDs/PIs have the appropriate expertise to conduct the needs assessment, implement the proposed project, analyze the outcomes, and develop action plans?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

How well does the applicant create approaches to fit their context and needs? Does the application employ novel approaches or methods to fulfill its purpose?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

To what extent does the applicant describe the tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of research capacity development activities? To what degree does the applicant identify metrics and indicators of success that will be used to assess the anticipated outcomes? Is the duration of the initial needs assessment stage adequate to develop action plans for short-term goals? To what degree isthe structure and governance plan likely to lead to implementation of the proposed plan? Are these goals feasible and well developed on the timeline of the award? How well are the program goals/aims aligned with yearly milestones and are the details provided adequate?

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

How strong is the level of institutional commitment to the project, including administrative and scientific support, to ensure the success of the project?

How well do the letters of support demonstrate a strong commitment to the proposed activities?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects .

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research .

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section .

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Not applicable

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms ) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NIMHD, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures , using the stated review criteria . Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.

Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.
• Geographical distribution of the portfolio
• Balance between HRA and LRA awards

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons . Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities , including of note, but not limited to:

• Federal wide Research Terms and Conditions
• Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• Acknowledgment of Federal Funding

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS will be required to complete an HHS Assurance of Compliance form (HHS 690) in which the recipient agrees, as a term and condition of receiving the grant, to administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex and disability, and agreeing to comply with federal conscience laws, where applicable. This includes ensuring that entities take meaningful steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency; and ensuring effective communication with persons with disabilities. Where applicable, Title XI and Section 1557 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and gender identity. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/nondiscrimination/index.html

HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting the legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov .
• For information on an institution’s specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including providing program access, reasonable modifications, and to provide effective communication, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html .
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html . For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm .
• For guidance on administering programs in compliance with applicable federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html .

Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies. The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will continue as a cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the recipients is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the recipients for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the recipients and the NIH as defined below.

The individual STRONG-RLI recipients will establish steering committees at their institutions with defined roles.

In addition, the PIs of the STRONG-RLI awards and involved NIH staff, and others as needed (ex-officio), will form a STRONG-RLI Executive Steering Committee (SESC) which will oversee the activities of the STRONG-RLI program recipients. There will be a yearly rotating chair of the SESC who will be nominated and selected from the PIs of the awards.

The PDs/PIs will have the primary responsibility for:

• Plan, organize, coordinate, and administer the described activities of the program, including setting project milestones with specific timelines and criteria for Institutional needs assessment and developing action plans.
• Establish Steering Committee, organize, and coordinate SESC meetings
• Ensure compliance with the applicable mandatory NIH regulations and policies
• Participate in the STRONG SESC meetings is a requirement for the PI/PDs.The purpose of the meeting is to share progress, best practices, and address common challenges.
• Work closely with the NIH Program Official and Project Coordinator (see below) in project coordination and management.
• Establish a separate site specific steering committee that will comprise of PI, institute leadership and NIH staff
• Evaluate progress using defined milestones and metrics. Recipients will provide NIH with progress reports at regular intervals as requested.
• Share needs assessment and action plan with the NIH during the award period.
• Recipients will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies.

NIH staff will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

The NIH Project Coordinator will :

Work closely with individual PIs and NIH program officials (POs) to facilitate collaborations.

• Interact with each recipient, help coordinate approaches, and contribute to the adjustment of projects/programs or approaches as warranted.
• Advise the recipient in performing project activities (e.g., coordination among RLI recipients for needs assessments; provide access to NIH supported resources; identify other resources for the project);
• Facilitate, not direct, activities.
• Participate on the Steering Committee (see below) or in other functions to help guide the course of the program (e.g., Annual Program Meeting and other Program related meetings).
• Ensure that the directions taken are consistent with the NIH missions and goals.

The Project Coordinator will not participate in the oversight of the funding opportunity announcement, application review, or programmatic and budgetary stewardship of the award.

The Program Official will be responsible for the normal programmatic stewardship of the award, including funding decisions, and will be named in the award notice. The Program Official will not serve as a voting member of the Steering Committee or partake of the duties of the Project Coordinator.

Areas of joint responsibility

The SECS is the governing and oversight body for the Program. Members, who are appointed by the PDs/PIs of the award, will be comprised of the following:

• The PI of each award will serve as the SESC member.
• NIH Project Coordinators.
• Additional members from the NIH may be appointed, but the total number of NIH votes may not exceed 1/3 of the Executive Steering Committee voting membership. Other government staff may attend the Steering Committee meetings, if their expertise is required for specific discussions.
• Each recipient must plan regular meetings (no less frequently than monthly) to discuss the progress and direction of its activities and to ensure that the necessary interactions are taking place. Recipients will be expected to participate in STRONG RLI program-wide meetings. These meetings may be in the form of phone teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and/or web conferencing, as well as face-to-face meetings. Unwillingness or a consistent inability of a PD/PI to attend may be the basis for administrative action including termination of the award.

The SESC will:

• Serve as the primary steering and oversight board for the awards funded under this NOFO.
• Decide on the schedule of regular and annual meetings. The Executive Steering Committee may also call meetings to address urgent needs and will participate in network meetings and teleconferences as needed.
• Contribute to the development of a cohesive and sustainable program.
• Provide advice on key issues such as needs assessment administration, approaches, and tools for research capacity, and opportunities for growth.
• Ensure that the implementation of the Institutional Needs Assessments and Development of Sustainable Action Plan is occurring on schedule and continues to align with the applicant institution's strategic vision for biomedical research and/or research training.
• Alert NIH to emerging needs and impediments.
• Prepare concise (1-2 page) summaries of the Executive Steering Committee recommendations, which will be delivered to the PDs/PIs and members of the group within 30 days after each meeting.

Dispute Resolution:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to dispute resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. The three members will be a designee of the STRONG Executive Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two. In the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual recipient. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the recipient's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.

The NIH reserves the right to withhold funding or curtail the program (of an individual award) in accordance with NIH policy.

3. Data Management and Sharing

Note: The NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing is effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023.

Consistent with the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

4. Reporting

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources) Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace) Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726 Email: [email protected]

Brett Miller, PhD Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Telephone: 301-496-9849 Email: [email protected]

Rina Das, PhD. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Telephone: 301-496-3996 Email: [email protected]

Behrous Davani, PhD. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-6170 Email: [email protected]

Olga Kovbasnjuk, Ph.D. National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) E-mail: [email protected]

Kristopher Bough, PhD National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Telephone: 301-337-1372 Email: [email protected]

Anissa F Brown, PhD NIDCR - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH Phone: 301-594-5006 E-mail: [email protected]

Melissa C. Green Parker, Ph.D. Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) Phone: 301-480-1161 E-mail: [email protected]

Erica K Rosemond NCATS - NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES Phone: (301) 594-8927 E-mail: [email protected]

Kristy M. Nicks, PhD National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Tel: 301-594-5055 Email: [email protected]

Carol Shreffler, PhD National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Phone: 984-287-3322 E-mail: s [email protected]

Aria Crump NIDA - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE Phone: 301-443-6504 E-mail: [email protected]

Diane Adger-Johnson, MPH Office of Research Training and Special Programs (ORTSP) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Telephone: 301-594-5945 Email: [email protected]

Damiya Eve Whitaker, PsyD, MA ORWH - Office of Research on Women's Health Phone: 301-451-8206 E-mail: [email protected]

Damali Martin, Ph.D., MPH NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING (NIA) Division of Neuroscience (DN) Phone: 301-402-8310 E-mail: [email protected]

Judith Cooper NIDCD - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS Phone: (301) 496-5061 E-mail: [email protected]

Xinzhi Zhang, M.D. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Phone: 301-435-6865 Email: [email protected]

Brittany Haynes, Ph.D. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Telephone: 301-496-2767 Email: [email protected]

Beda Jean-Francois, Ph.D. National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (NCCIH) Phone: 202-313-2144 Email: [email protected]

Elizabeth Powell, PhD National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse ( NIAAA ) Telephone: 301-443-0786 Email: [email protected]

Margaret Young Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Telephone: 301-642-4552 Email: [email protected]

Priscilla Grant, JD National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Telephone: 301-594-8412 Email: [email protected]

Alania Foster NIGMS - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES E-mail: [email protected]

Randi Freundlich National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Telephone: 301-594-5974 Email: [email protected]

Gabriel Hidalgo, MBA NIDCR - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH Phone: 301-827-4630 E-mail: [email protected]

Leslie Le NCATS - NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES Phone: (301) 435-0856 E-mail: [email protected]

Jenny L Greer NIEHS - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES Phone: 984.287.3332 E-mail: [email protected]

Pamela G Fleming NIDA - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE Phone: 301-480-1159 E-mail: [email protected]

Samuel Ashe National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) Telephone: 301-435-4799 Email: [email protected]

Jeni Smits NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING (NIA) E-mail: [email protected]

Anthony Agresti NHLBI - NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE Phone: 301-827-8014 E-mail: [email protected]

Tamara Kees National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Telephone: 301-443-8811 Email: [email protected]

Debbie Chen, Ph.D. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Telephone: 301-594-3788 Email: [email protected]

Judy Fox National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) Telephone: 301-443-4704 Email: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200.

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Republicans and Democrats have different top priorities for U.S. immigration policy

Republicans and Democrats differ over the most pressing priorities for the nation’s immigration system. Republicans place particular importance on border security and deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, while Democrats place greater importance on paths to legal status for those who entered the country illegally – especially those who entered as children, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Still, there are some areas of overlap between Republicans and Democrats, and there are sizable ideological differences in immigration goals within each partisan coalition, with conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats expressing more intense views than others in their parties.

As the number of people apprehended for illegally crossing the southern border has reached record annual levels, about three-quarters of Americans (73%) say increasing security along the U.S.-Mexico border to reduce illegal crossings should be a very (44%) or somewhat (29%) important goal of U.S. immigration policy. Nearly all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (91%) say border security should be an important goal, while a smaller majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (59%) say the same, according to the survey of 7,647 U.S. adults conducted Aug. 1 to 14.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand the public’s policy priorities and goals for the U.S. immigration system. For this analysis, we surveyed 7,647 adults from Aug. 1-14, 2022. The survey was primarily conducted on the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, with an oversample of Hispanic adults from Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.

Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. See the Methodology section for additional details. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Majorities of Americans also say taking in civilian refugees from countries where people are trying to escape violence and war (72%) and allowing immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to remain in the U.S. and apply for legal status (72%) should be important goals for the immigration system. Each of these priorities garners more support from Democrats than Republicans.

About two-thirds of the public (66%) wants the immigration system to make it easier for U.S. citizens and legal residents to sponsor family members to immigrate to the U.S., while six-in-ten say establishing a way for most immigrants currently in the country illegally to stay legally should be an important immigration policy goal. A similar share (57%) says that increasing deportations of immigrants currently in the country illegally should be a very or somewhat important goal of U.S. immigration policy.

Wide partisan and ideological differences on immigration policy

For every policy asked about in the survey, there are sizable partisan differences in perceived importance. Still, for many policies included in the survey, majorities in both parties say it should be at least a somewhat important goal.

About nine-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (91%) call increasing security along the U.S.-Mexico border an important goal, including 72% who say it should be a very important goal.

While a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (59%) say border security should be at least somewhat important, just 22% view this as very important – 50 percentage points less than the share of Republicans who say this.

About eight-in-ten Republicans (79%) say increasing deportations of immigrants currently in the country illegally is important, with nearly half (49%) calling it very important. By comparison, 39% of Democrats view increasing deportations as very or somewhat important, including just 12% who see it as very important.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans (80% vs. 37%) to say that establishing a way for most immigrants currently in the country illegally to stay in the U.S. legally is an important goal for the nation’s immigration system. About four-in-ten Democrats (38%) view this as a very important goal, compared with 10% of Republicans.

Majorities in both parties say that taking in refugees from countries where people are fleeing war and violence is an important goal. Nonetheless, more Democrats than Republicans view it as important (85% vs. 58%). Around four-in-ten Democrats (41%) say that taking in refugees is very important, while just 13% of Republicans say the same.

Conservative Republicans are the most likely to express strong support for more restrictive immigration goals such as increased border security and increased deportations, even when compared with others in their party. Liberal Democrats, by contrast, are the least supportive of these restrictive goals while being the most supportive of establishing a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants in the country.

Around eight-in-ten conservative Republicans (82%) say increased border security should be a very important goal for U.S. immigration policy; about half of moderates and liberals in the GOP (54%) say the same. Similarly, about six-in-ten conservative Republicans (58%) say increasing deportations of immigrants currently in the country illegally should be a very important goal, compared with about a third of moderate and liberal Republicans (34%). (Conservative Republicans account for about six-in-ten of those who identify with or lean toward the GOP.)

Among Democrats, conservatives and moderates are more likely than liberals to say more restrictive goals are very or somewhat important to U.S. immigration policy. Seven-in-ten conservative and moderate Democrats say increasing border security should be a very or somewhat important goal, compared with 44% of liberal Democrats. Conservative and moderate Democrats are also twice as likely as liberal Democrats (50% vs. 25%) to say increasing deportations should be an important goal.

Liberal Democrats are the most supportive of creating a way for most undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally: 85% say this should be an important goal, including 44% who say it should very important. Three-quarters of conservative and moderate Democrats see this as an important goal, including 32% who see it as very important. Among Republicans, half of moderates and liberals say a path to legal status should be an important goal, while only about three-in-ten conservatives (28%) say the same.

Modest changes in views of U.S. immigration policy

Many of the public’s views about immigration policy goals have been largely stable over the past few years. For example, views on taking in refugees are roughly the same as in 2019, and views on allowing immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children to apply for legal status are largely unchanged from 2016. There has been a modest increase in the share of Americans who say increasing deportations of immigrations here illegally should be a very or somewhat important goal (57% today vs. 54% in 2019).

There has been a 5 percentage point increase in the share of the public who say increasing security along the U.S.-Mexico border to reduce illegal crossings should be an important goal (73% today vs. 68% three years ago). This increase is largely driven by a 10-point increase in the share of Democrats who say this (59% today vs. 49% then).

Support for a pathway to legal status for most immigrants currently in the country illegally has declined over the past three years. Today, six-in-ten adults say this should be an important goal, down from 67% in 2019 and similar to the share who said this in 2016 (62%). The decline reflects a decrease among Republicans – especially conservative Republicans. In 2019, about half of Republicans (48%) said this should be an important goal; today, just 37% say the same.

Note: Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Border Security & Enforcement
• Family Reunification
• Immigration Attitudes
• Immigration Issues
• Issue Priorities
• Refugees & Asylum Seekers
• Unauthorized Immigration

Latinos’ Views on the Migrant Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border

U.s. christians more likely than ‘nones’ to say situation at the border is a crisis, how americans view the situation at the u.s.-mexico border, its causes and consequences, migrant encounters at the u.s.-mexico border hit a record high at the end of 2023, americans remain critical of government’s handling of situation at u.s.-mexico border, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy