chapters for research paper

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

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

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

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

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

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

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

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

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

Why is the methodology chapter important?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

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

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

Section 1 – Introduction

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

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

Section 2 – The Methodology

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

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

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

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

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

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

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

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

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

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

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

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

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

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

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

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

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

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

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

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

Methodology Chapter Example

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

Wrapping Up

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

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

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

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

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

Highly clear and useful.

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

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

Thanks it was helpful

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

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

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

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

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

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

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

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

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

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

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

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

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

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

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

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

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

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

its so good in deed

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

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

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

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

highly appreciate your effort.

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

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

How to Write a Research Paper: Parts of the Paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of Thesis Statements from Purdue OWL

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

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

More about writing a literature review. . .

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Research Paper

Use the links below to jump directly to any section of this guide:

Research Paper Fundamentals

How to choose a topic or question, how to create a working hypothesis or thesis, common research paper methodologies, how to gather and organize evidence , how to write an outline for your research paper, how to write a rough draft, how to revise your draft, how to produce a final draft, resources for teachers .

It is not fair to say that no one writes anymore. Just about everyone writes text messages, brief emails, or social media posts every single day. Yet, most people don't have a lot of practice with the formal, organized writing required for a good academic research paper. This guide contains links to a variety of resources that can help demystify the process. Some of these resources are intended for teachers; they contain exercises, activities, and teaching strategies. Other resources are intended for direct use by students who are struggling to write papers, or are looking for tips to make the process go more smoothly.

The resources in this section are designed to help students understand the different types of research papers, the general research process, and how to manage their time. Below, you'll find links from university writing centers, the trusted Purdue Online Writing Lab, and more.

What is an Academic Research Paper?

"Genre and the Research Paper" (Purdue OWL)

There are different types of research papers. Different types of scholarly questions will lend themselves to one format or another. This is a brief introduction to the two main genres of research paper: analytic and argumentative. 

"7 Most Popular Types of Research Papers" (Personal-writer.com)

This resource discusses formats that high school students commonly encounter, such as the compare and contrast essay and the definitional essay. Please note that the inclusion of this link is not an endorsement of this company's paid service.

How to Prepare and Plan Out Writing a Research Paper

Teachers can give their students a step-by-step guide like these to help them understand the different steps of the research paper process. These guides can be combined with the time management tools in the next subsection to help students come up with customized calendars for completing their papers.

"Ten Steps for Writing Research Papers" (American University)  

This resource from American University is a comprehensive guide to the research paper writing process, and includes examples of proper research questions and thesis topics.

"Steps in Writing a Research Paper" (SUNY Empire State College)

This guide breaks the research paper process into 11 steps. Each "step" links to a separate page, which describes the work entailed in completing it.

How to Manage Time Effectively

The links below will help students determine how much time is necessary to complete a paper. If your sources are not available online or at your local library, you'll need to leave extra time for the Interlibrary Loan process. Remember that, even if you do not need to consult secondary sources, you'll still need to leave yourself ample time to organize your thoughts.

"Research Paper Planner: Timeline" (Baylor University)

This interactive resource from Baylor University creates a suggested writing schedule based on how much time a student has to work on the assignment.

"Research Paper Planner" (UCLA)

UCLA's library offers this step-by-step guide to the research paper writing process, which also includes a suggested planning calendar.

There's a reason teachers spend a long time talking about choosing a good topic. Without a good topic and a well-formulated research question, it is almost impossible to write a clear and organized paper. The resources below will help you generate ideas and formulate precise questions.

"How to Select a Research Topic" (Univ. of Michigan-Flint)

This resource is designed for college students who are struggling to come up with an appropriate topic. A student who uses this resource and still feels unsure about his or her topic should consult the course instructor for further personalized assistance.

"25 Interesting Research Paper Topics to Get You Started" (Kibin)

This resource, which is probably most appropriate for high school students, provides a list of specific topics to help get students started. It is broken into subsections, such as "paper topics on local issues."

"Writing a Good Research Question" (Grand Canyon University)

This introduction to research questions includes some embedded videos, as well as links to scholarly articles on research questions. This resource would be most appropriate for teachers who are planning lessons on research paper fundamentals.

"How to Write a Research Question the Right Way" (Kibin)

This student-focused resource provides more detail on writing research questions. The language is accessible, and there are embedded videos and examples of good and bad questions.

It is important to have a rough hypothesis or thesis in mind at the beginning of the research process. People who have a sense of what they want to say will have an easier time sorting through scholarly sources and other information. The key, of course, is not to become too wedded to the draft hypothesis or thesis. Just about every working thesis gets changed during the research process.

CrashCourse Video: "Sociology Research Methods" (YouTube)

Although this video is tailored to sociology students, it is applicable to students in a variety of social science disciplines. This video does a good job demonstrating the connection between the brainstorming that goes into selecting a research question and the formulation of a working hypothesis.

"How to Write a Thesis Statement for an Analytical Essay" (YouTube)

Students writing analytical essays will not develop the same type of working hypothesis as students who are writing research papers in other disciplines. For these students, developing the working thesis may happen as a part of the rough draft (see the relevant section below). 

"Research Hypothesis" (Oakland Univ.)

This resource provides some examples of hypotheses in social science disciplines like Political Science and Criminal Justice. These sample hypotheses may also be useful for students in other soft social sciences and humanities disciplines like History.

When grading a research paper, instructors look for a consistent methodology. This section will help you understand different methodological approaches used in research papers. Students will get the most out of these resources if they use them to help prepare for conversations with teachers or discussions in class.

"Types of Research Designs" (USC)

A "research design," used for complex papers, is related to the paper's method. This resource contains introductions to a variety of popular research designs in the social sciences. Although it is not the most intuitive site to read, the information here is very valuable. 

"Major Research Methods" (YouTube)

Although this video is a bit on the dry side, it provides a comprehensive overview of the major research methodologies in a format that might be more accessible to students who have struggled with textbooks or other written resources.

"Humanities Research Strategies" (USC)

This is a portal where students can learn about four methodological approaches for humanities papers: Historical Methodologies, Textual Criticism, Conceptual Analysis, and the Synoptic method.

"Selected Major Social Science Research Methods: Overview" (National Academies Press)

This appendix from the book  Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy , printed by National Academies Press, introduces some methods used in social science papers.

"Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: 6. The Methodology" (USC)

This resource from the University of Southern California's library contains tips for writing a methodology section in a research paper.

How to Determine the Best Methodology for You

Anyone who is new to writing research papers should be sure to select a method in consultation with their instructor. These resources can be used to help prepare for that discussion. They may also be used on their own by more advanced students.

"Choosing Appropriate Research Methodologies" (Palgrave Study Skills)

This friendly and approachable resource from Palgrave Macmillan can be used by students who are just starting to think about appropriate methodologies.

"How to Choose Your Research Methods" (NFER (UK))

This is another approachable resource students can use to help narrow down the most appropriate methods for their research projects.

The resources in this section introduce the process of gathering scholarly sources and collecting evidence. You'll find a range of material here, from introductory guides to advanced explications best suited to college students. Please consult the LitCharts  How to Do Academic Research guide for a more comprehensive list of resources devoted to finding scholarly literature.

Google Scholar

Students who have access to library websites with detailed research guides should start there, but people who do not have access to those resources can begin their search for secondary literature here.

"Gathering Appropriate Information" (Texas Gateway)

This resource from the Texas Gateway for online resources introduces students to the research process, and contains interactive exercises. The level of complexity is suitable for middle school, high school, and introductory college classrooms.

"An Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection Methods" (NSF)

This PDF from the National Science Foundation goes into detail about best practices and pitfalls in data collection across multiple types of methodologies.

"Social Science Methods for Data Collection and Analysis" (Swiss FIT)

This resource is appropriate for advanced undergraduates or teachers looking to create lessons on research design and data collection. It covers techniques for gathering data via interviews, observations, and other methods.

"Collecting Data by In-depth Interviewing" (Leeds Univ.)

This resource contains enough information about conducting interviews to make it useful for teachers who want to create a lesson plan, but is also accessible enough for college juniors or seniors to make use of it on their own.

There is no "one size fits all" outlining technique. Some students might devote all their energy and attention to the outline in order to avoid the paper. Other students may benefit from being made to sit down and organize their thoughts into a lengthy sentence outline. The resources in this section include strategies and templates for multiple types of outlines. 

"Topic vs. Sentence Outlines" (UC Berkeley)

This resource introduces two basic approaches to outlining: the shorter topic-based approach, and the longer, more detailed sentence-based approach. This resource also contains videos on how to develop paper paragraphs from the sentence-based outline.

"Types of Outlines and Samples" (Purdue OWL)

The Purdue Online Writing Lab's guide is a slightly less detailed discussion of different types of outlines. It contains several sample outlines.

"Writing An Outline" (Austin C.C.)

This resource from a community college contains sample outlines from an American history class that students can use as models.

"How to Structure an Outline for a College Paper" (YouTube)

This brief (sub-2 minute) video from the ExpertVillage YouTube channel provides a model of outline writing for students who are struggling with the idea.

"Outlining" (Harvard)

This is a good resource to consult after completing a draft outline. It offers suggestions for making sure your outline avoids things like unnecessary repetition.

As with outlines, rough drafts can take on many different forms. These resources introduce teachers and students to the various approaches to writing a rough draft. This section also includes resources that will help you cite your sources appropriately according to the MLA, Chicago, and APA style manuals.

"Creating a Rough Draft for a Research Paper" (Univ. of Minnesota)

This resource is useful for teachers in particular, as it provides some suggested exercises to help students with writing a basic rough draft. 

Rough Draft Assignment (Duke of Definition)

This sample assignment, with a brief list of tips, was developed by a high school teacher who runs a very successful and well-reviewed page of educational resources.

"Creating the First Draft of Your Research Paper" (Concordia Univ.)

This resource will be helpful for perfectionists or procrastinators, as it opens by discussing the problem of avoiding writing. It also provides a short list of suggestions meant to get students writing.

Using Proper Citations

There is no such thing as a rough draft of a scholarly citation. These links to the three major citation guides will ensure that your citations follow the correct format. Please consult the LitCharts How to Cite Your Sources guide for more resources.

Chicago Manual of Style Citation Guide

Some call  The Chicago Manual of Style , which was first published in 1906, "the editors' Bible." The manual is now in its 17th edition, and is popular in the social sciences, historical journals, and some other fields in the humanities.

APA Citation Guide

According to the American Psychological Association, this guide was developed to aid reading comprehension, clarity of communication, and to reduce bias in language in the social and behavioral sciences. Its first full edition was published in 1952, and it is now in its sixth edition.

MLA Citation Guide

The Modern Language Association style is used most commonly within the liberal arts and humanities. The  MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing  was first published in 1985 and (as of 2008) is in its third edition.

Any professional scholar will tell you that the best research papers are made in the revision stage. No matter how strong your research question or working thesis, it is not possible to write a truly outstanding paper without devoting energy to revision. These resources provide examples of revision exercises for the classroom, as well as tips for students working independently.

"The Art of Revision" (Univ. of Arizona)

This resource provides a wealth of information and suggestions for both students and teachers. There is a list of suggested exercises that teachers might use in class, along with a revision checklist that is useful for teachers and students alike.

"Script for Workshop on Revision" (Vanderbilt University)

Vanderbilt's guide for leading a 50-minute revision workshop can serve as a model for teachers who wish to guide students through the revision process during classtime. 

"Revising Your Paper" (Univ. of Washington)

This detailed handout was designed for students who are beginning the revision process. It discusses different approaches and methods for revision, and also includes a detailed list of things students should look for while they revise.

"Revising Drafts" (UNC Writing Center)

This resource is designed for students and suggests things to look for during the revision process. It provides steps for the process and has a FAQ for students who have questions about why it is important to revise.

Conferencing with Writing Tutors and Instructors

No writer is so good that he or she can't benefit from meeting with instructors or peer tutors. These resources from university writing, learning, and communication centers provide suggestions for how to get the most out of these one-on-one meetings.

"Getting Feedback" (UNC Writing Center)

This very helpful resource talks about how to ask for feedback during the entire writing process. It contains possible questions that students might ask when developing an outline, during the revision process, and after the final draft has been graded.

"Prepare for Your Tutoring Session" (Otis College of Art and Design)

This guide from a university's student learning center contains a lot of helpful tips for getting the most out of working with a writing tutor.

"The Importance of Asking Your Professor" (Univ. of Waterloo)

This article from the university's Writing and Communication Centre's blog contains some suggestions for how and when to get help from professors and Teaching Assistants.

Once you've revised your first draft, you're well on your way to handing in a polished paper. These resources—each of them produced by writing professionals at colleges and universities—outline the steps required in order to produce a final draft. You'll find proofreading tips and checklists in text and video form.

"Developing a Final Draft of a Research Paper" (Univ. of Minnesota)

While this resource contains suggestions for revision, it also features a couple of helpful checklists for the last stages of completing a final draft.

Basic Final Draft Tips and Checklist (Univ. of Maryland-University College)

This short and accessible resource, part of UMUC's very thorough online guide to writing and research, contains a very basic checklist for students who are getting ready to turn in their final drafts.

Final Draft Checklist (Everett C.C.)

This is another accessible final draft checklist, appropriate for both high school and college students. It suggests reading your essay aloud at least once.

"How to Proofread Your Final Draft" (YouTube)

This video (approximately 5 minutes), produced by Eastern Washington University, gives students tips on proofreading final drafts.

"Proofreading Tips" (Georgia Southern-Armstrong)

This guide will help students learn how to spot common errors in their papers. It suggests focusing on content and editing for grammar and mechanics.

This final set of resources is intended specifically for high school and college instructors. It provides links to unit plans and classroom exercises that can help improve students' research and writing skills. You'll find resources that give an overview of the process, along with activities that focus on how to begin and how to carry out research. 

"Research Paper Complete Resources Pack" (Teachers Pay Teachers)

This packet of assignments, rubrics, and other resources is designed for high school students. The resources in this packet are aligned to Common Core standards.

"Research Paper—Complete Unit" (Teachers Pay Teachers)

This packet of assignments, notes, PowerPoints, and other resources has a 4/4 rating with over 700 ratings. It is designed for high school teachers, but might also be useful to college instructors who work with freshmen.

"Teaching Students to Write Good Papers" (Yale)

This resource from Yale's Center for Teaching and Learning is designed for college instructors, and it includes links to appropriate activities and exercises.

"Research Paper Writing: An Overview" (CUNY Brooklyn)

CUNY Brooklyn offers this complete lesson plan for introducing students to research papers. It includes an accompanying set of PowerPoint slides.

"Lesson Plan: How to Begin Writing a Research Paper" (San Jose State Univ.)

This lesson plan is designed for students in the health sciences, so teachers will have to modify it for their own needs. It includes a breakdown of the brainstorming, topic selection, and research question process. 

"Quantitative Techniques for Social Science Research" (Univ. of Pittsburgh)

This is a set of PowerPoint slides that can be used to introduce students to a variety of quantitative methods used in the social sciences.

• PDFs for all 136 Lit Terms we cover
• Downloads of 1929 LitCharts Lit Guides
• Teacher Editions for every Lit Guide
• Explanations and citation info for 40,694 quotes across 1929 books
• Downloadable (PDF) line-by-line translations of every Shakespeare play

Need something? Request a new guide .

How can we improve? Share feedback .

LitCharts is hiring!

The Process of Research Writing

(19 reviews)

Steven D. Krause, Eastern Michigan University

Copyright Year: 2007

Publisher: Steven D. Krause

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Kevin Kennedy, Adjunct Professor, Bridgewater State University on 12/2/22

I think this book would make an excellent supplement to other class material in a class focused on writing and research. It helps a lot with the "why"s of research and gives a high-level overview. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

I think this book would make an excellent supplement to other class material in a class focused on writing and research. It helps a lot with the "why"s of research and gives a high-level overview.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate, and talks a lot about different ways to view academic writing

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

This would be quite relevant for a student early on the college journey who is starting to complete research-based projects.

Clarity rating: 4

The text is clear and concise, though that conciseness sometimes leads to less content than I'd like

Consistency rating: 5

The book is consistent throughout

Modularity rating: 4

I could use the first chapters of this book very easily, but the later ones get into exercises that my classes wouldn't necessarily use

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The book is organized from the high level (what is academic writing with research) to the more specific (here are some specific exercises)

Interface rating: 3

I don't like the flow from contents to chapters, and they feel distinctly text-based. This is a no-frills text, but that's ok.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

I didn't note anything glaringly obvious

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I think that this text stays away from the cultural and focuses mostly on the cognitive. This prevents offensive material, though it may make it less appealing to students.

Reviewed by Julie Sorge Way, Instructional Faculty, James Madison University on 11/23/21

Overall, I think this book’s strongest suits are its organization, clarity, and modularity. It is useful and adaptable for a wide range of courses involving a research component, and as the book itself argues, research is a part of most learning... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Overall, I think this book’s strongest suits are its organization, clarity, and modularity. It is useful and adaptable for a wide range of courses involving a research component, and as the book itself argues, research is a part of most learning at the university level, whether or not a single traditional “research paper” is the end goal of a course. This is a great book with adaptable and useful content across a range of disciplines, and while it is low on “bells and whistles,” the content it provides seems to be relevant, helpful, and also fill a gap among other OER texts that focus more on rhetoric and less on research.

Because this is a book on research writing rather than cutting edge science, etc. it is unlikely to be made inaccurate by the passing of time.

In a desire to move past the simple “Comp II” textbook, Krause’s work here is relevant to a variety of fields. In creating a course with a major-specific research component, many parts of this text are relevant to what I’m doing, and due to its modularity and organization (see below) I am able to make use of it easily and draw students’ attention to the parts that will help them most with our learning objectives.

Clarity rating: 5

Krause’s writing style is uncomplicated and direct. His examples are ones I think most students could relate to or at least connect with reasonably well.

While the book is internally consistent in its tone, level of detail, and relevance to Krause’s original writing goals, in the process of applying it to different courses (as almost inevitably happens with OER materials) it is inconsistently useful for the course I in particular am planning. This is certainly no fault of the book’s. One example would be that it presents MLA and APA format for citing sources, but not Chicago/Turabian.

Modularity rating: 5

Certainly, its modularity is a real strong suit for Krause’s book overall – individual instructors planning different types of coursework that involve writing and research can easily adapt parts that work, and its Creative Commons license makes this even better.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Clear and direct organization is another strong suit in Krause’s text. The information is presented in an orderly and easy to navigate way that allows instructors and students alike to hone in on the most useful information for their writing and research task without spending undue amounts of time searching. This is much appreciated especially in an open access text where instructors are more likely to be “picking and choosing” relevant content from multiple texts and resources.

Interface rating: 4

Simple but clear – basic HTML and PDF navigation by chapter and section. Like many OER texts it is a bit short on visual engagement – the colorful infographics and illustrations many people are used to both in printed textbooks and interacting with internet content.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No errors noted.

Widely relevant (at least in the North American context I have most experience with) but as always, instructors should preview and adapt all material for the needs and context of their own classes and students.

Reviewed by Li-Anne Delavega, Undergraduate Research Experience Coordinator, Kapiolani Community College on 5/1/21

This textbook builds a good foundation for first-year students with topics such as developing a thesis, how to find sources and evaluate them, creating an annotated bibliography, audience, and avoiding plagiarism. While the content is explained... read more

This textbook builds a good foundation for first-year students with topics such as developing a thesis, how to find sources and evaluate them, creating an annotated bibliography, audience, and avoiding plagiarism. While the content is explained well and students are slowly walked through the research process, the textbook ends abruptly ends with a quick overview of the elements of a research essay after students organize their evidence and create an outline. A part two textbook that covers the rest of the writing process, such as structuring paragraphs, how to write an introduction and conclusion, and revising drafts, is needed to help students get to a finished product. As a composition-based textbook, I also felt it could have used a section on building arguments. The true gem of this textbook is its activities/exercises and comprehensive but accessible explanations.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Aside from outdated citations and technology-related content, the process-based writing instruction is accurate and answers common questions from students about research and basic writing. I feel like the questions, checklists, and activities posed are helpful for students to really think through their writing process, and the author explains things without judgment. While students can benefit, I feel that faculty would also benefit from using this as a teaching manual to plan their classes.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The writing instruction is solid and is still used in many textbooks today. Obviously, the sections on technology and citation are outdated, but some sections still have good reliable advice at their core. For example, search language, unreliable web sources, and collaborating online have evolved, but the concepts remain the same. I would cut those sections out and just take what I needed to give to students. The author has no plans to update this book, and someone would need to rewrite many sections of the book, which is not easy to implement.

The book is largely free of jargon and terms are clearly explained. The author's tone is casual and conversational when compared to other textbooks, which makes it more accessible to students and acts as a guide through the research process. However, it does lend itself to longer sections that could use heavy editing and it does sound like a mini-lecture, but I liked the way he thoroughly explains and sets up concepts. His tone and style are a bit inconsistent as others have noted.

The book is very consistent since research and writing terminology is the same across most disciplines. If you're a composition instructor, you'll find the framework is just common writing pedagogy for academic writing: focus on the writing process, freewriting, peer review, audience, revision, etc.

This book was intended to be modular and chapters are mostly self-contained, so it is easy to use individual chapters or change the sequence. There are unusable hyperlinks in each chapter that refer to other sections, but those are additional resources that could be replaced with a citation guide or other common resources. Sections, activities, examples, and key ideas are clearly labeled and can be used without the rest of the chapter. However, some writing concepts, such as a working thesis, are mentioned again in later chapters.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

Parts of the book are easily identifiable and the content within the chapter flows easily from one concept to the next. I felt that some of the chapters should have appeared earlier in the textbook. Students would have to wait until chapter 10 to learn about the research essay. Revising a working thesis comes before categorizing and reviewing your evidence. The peer-review chapter that advises students to read sections of their writing aloud to catch mistakes comes before brainstorming a topic. However, the sequence will depend on the instructor's preference. An index or a complete, searchable text would have helped so you don't need to guess which chapter has the content you need.

The PDF is the more polished and easier to read of the two versions. Overall, the PDF was well laid out, with clear headers and images. I found the colored boxes for the exercises helpful, though a lighter color would make the text easier to see for more students. The text uses different styles to create organization and emphasis, which made some pages (especially in the beginning) hard to read with the bolded and italicized clutter. I would have loved a complied version with all the chapters.

The HTML version is difficult to read as it is one long block of text and the callouts and images are not well spaced. There is, unfortunately, no benefit to reading the web version: no clickable links, dynamic text flow, or navigational links within each page so you will need to go back to the TOC to get the next section.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

The book has grammatical and mechanical errors throughout but does not impact content comprehension. Other reviewers here identified more notable errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

The language, examples, and references were generally ok, but the overall textbook felt acultural. Some consideration was taken with pronouns (relies on they/them/their) and gender roles. As others pointed out, there are many areas that could have used diversified sources, topics, references, examples, and students. Some of the textbook's activities assume able-bodied students and sections such as peer collaboration would benefit from a more nuanced discussion when he brought up resentment over non-contributing members, being silenced, and access to resources. There are a few red flags, but one glaring example is on page 5 of chapter 10. An excerpt from an article titled “Preparing to Be Colonized: Land Tenure and Legal Strategy in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii”(which includes the sentence, "Why did Hawaiians do this to themselves?") was used to show students when to use "I" in writing.

Overall, this is a good resource for writing instructors. As this book was written in 2007, faculty will need to cut or adapt a fair amount of the text to modernize it. It is not a textbook to assign to students for the semester, but the textbook's core content is solid writing pedagogy and the focus on using activities to reflect and revise is wonderful. Those outside of composition may find the basic exercises and explanations useful as long as students are primarily working out of a more discipline-specific (e.g., sciences) writing guide.

Reviewed by Milena Gueorguieva, Associate Teaching Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell on 6/28/20

This is a process based research writing textbook, a rarity among composition textbooks. It is often the case that foundational writing courses are supposed to cover process and then, very often, instructors, students and textbook authors all... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This is a process based research writing textbook, a rarity among composition textbooks. It is often the case that foundational writing courses are supposed to cover process and then, very often, instructors, students and textbook authors all forget that process is important when they have to dive into the technical aspects of conducting and writing about and from research, usually in a 'second course' in the first year writing sequence. This is not the case with this book: it is a thoughtful, comprehensive exploration of writing from research as a multi-step recursive process. This approach can help students solidify the knowledge and skills they have acquired in prior courses, especially the multi-step recursive nature of writing as a process while developing a set of strong writing from research skills.

The foundations of research writing are presented in an accessible yet rigorous way. The book does away with the myth of research writing as something you do after you think about and research a topic. The author articulated this idea very well, when he wrote, ”We think about what it is we want to research and write about, but at the same time, we learn what to think based on our research and our writing.”

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Overall, an excellent handbook (it can be used non-sequentially); however, some of the information on database searches and working with popular internet sources as well as collaborative writing (especially as it relates to the use of technology) needs updating.

The appropriately conversational tone translates complex academic concepts into easy to access ideas that students can relate to. The same is true for the many activities and exercises that demonstrate a variety of real life applications for the research skills presented in the book, which helps students see that research and research based writing happen everywhere, not just on campuses , where students seem to write for an audience of one: the professor who assigned the paper.

The material presented is rigorously and consistently presented in various modes: text, activities and exercises.

It can be used in a variety of ways; it has excellent modular stucture.

Excellently organized: reviews and expands on what students might already know about academic writing as a process; introduces the fundamentals of research and research writing and then uses both of these sets of skills in various research projects.

Although it has some very useful and appropriate visuals , the text could have been more user friendly; it is difficult to follow.

Excellently proof-read,

the book is culturally sensitive and contains appropriate examples and/or references.

An overall excellent composition text that provides useful exercises and assignments (such as the antithesis essay) that can help students build complex and nuanced arguments based on research. Highly recommend!

Reviewed by Valerie Young, Associate Professor, Hanover College on 3/29/20

This text is both general and specific. General enough for use in a variety of courses and disciplines, specific enough to garner interest for faculty who want to teach students the fundamentals and more nuanced aspects of research writing. The... read more

This text is both general and specific. General enough for use in a variety of courses and disciplines, specific enough to garner interest for faculty who want to teach students the fundamentals and more nuanced aspects of research writing. The basics are here. The text could be assigned in specific modules. The text will benefit from an update, especially in regards to references about collaborative writing tools and internet research. The text is missing a chapter on reading research and integrating research into the literature review process. This is a relevant skill for research writing, as student writers often struggle with reading the work of others to understand the body of literature as a foundation for their own assertions.

The content and information seems like it could be helpful for any undergraduate course that has a research writing project. The unique aspects of this book are its features of collaborative and peer review writing practices and all of the exercises embedded in the text. The author gives examples and writing exercises throughout the chapters. These examples could serve inexperienced students quite well. They could also annoy advanced students.

There are some references to the World Wide Web and the Internet, and library research that seem a bit outdated. There isn't much advanced referencing of commonly used internet research options, such as Google Scholar, citation apps, etc.

Clarity rating: 3

Some points are clear and concise. Other pieces go into too much detail for one chapter page. Because the pages are long, and not all content will be relevant to all readers, the author could consider using "collapsible" sections. This could be especially relevant in the APA & MLA sections, offering a side-by-side comparison of each or offering overviews of style basics with sections that open up into more details for some interested readers.

Consistency rating: 4

no issues here

Modularity rating: 3

The chapters are relatively concise and each starts with an overview of content. The web format does not allow for much navigational flow between chapters or sections. It would be great to hyperlink sections of content that are related so that readers can pass through parts of the text to other topics. It does look like the author intended to hyperlink between chapters, but those links (denoted "Hyperlink:" in the text) are not functional.

Overall flow is appropriate for an interdisciplinary lens. Readers can move through as many or as few sections as needed. The chapter topics and subtopics are organized fairly comprehensively, and often by questions that students might ask.

Interface rating: 2

The long blocks of text in each chapter aren't very reader friendly. Also, once the reader gets to the end of the long page / chapter, there is no navigation up to the top of the chapter or laterally to previous or next content. Text doesn't adjust to screen size, so larger screens might have lots of white space.

no issues noticed. Some examples could be updated to be more inclusive, culturally diverse, etc.

This book has some good lessons, questions, and suggestions for topics relevant to research writing. The text could benefit from a more modern take on research writing, as some of the topics and phrases are dated.

Reviewed by Jennifer Wilde, Adjunct instructor, Columbia Gorge Community College on 12/13/18

The text is a wonderful guidebook to the process of writing a research essay. It describes the steps a college writer should take when approaching a research assignment, and I have no doubt that if students followed the steps outlined by the... read more

The text is a wonderful guidebook to the process of writing a research essay. It describes the steps a college writer should take when approaching a research assignment, and I have no doubt that if students followed the steps outlined by the text, they would be sure to succeed in generating a quality thesis statement and locating appropriate sources. It is not comprehensive in that it has very little to say regarding composition, clarity and style. It does not contain an index or glossary.

Sections on MLA and APA format are inaccurate in that they are outdated. It would be preferable for the text to refer students to the online resources that provide up to date information on the latest conventions of APA and MLA.

The bulk of the chapters are timeless and filled with wisdom about using research to write a paper. However, the book should contain links or otherwise refer students to the web sources that would tell them how to use current MLA/APA format. There are some passages that feel anachronistic, as when the author recommends that students consider the advantages of using a computer rather than a word processor or typewriter. The sections on computer research and "netiquette" feel outdated. Finally, the author describes the differences between scholarly sources and periodicals but does not address the newer type of resources, the online journal that is peer-reviewed but open access and not associated with a university.

The writing is strong and clear. Dr. Krause does not indulge in the use of jargon.

The different sections open with an explanation of what will be covered. Then, the author explains the content. Some chapters are rather short while others are long, but generally each topic is addressed comprehensively. In the last several chapters, the author closes with a sample of student work that illustrates the principles the chapter addressed.

The text is divisible into sections. To some extent the content is sequential, but it is not necessary to read the early chapters (such as the section on using computers, which millenials do not need to read) in order to benefit from the wisdom in later chapters. I used this text in a writing 121 course, and I did not assign the entire text. I found some chapters helpful and others not so relevant to my particular needs. Students found the chapters useful and discrete, and they did not feel like they had to go back and read the whole thing. The section on writing an annotated bibliography, for instance, could be used in any writing class.

The topics are presented in the order in which a student approaches a writing assignment. First, the author asks, why write a research essay, and why do research? Next, the author addresses critical thinking and library/data use; quoting, summarizing and paraphrasing; collaboration and writing with others; writing a quality thesis statement; annotating a bibliography; categorizing sources; dealing with counterarguments, and actually writing the research essay. It's quite intuitive and logical. It seems clear that this author has had a lot of experience teaching students how to do these steps.

The interface is straightforward, but I could not locate any hyperlinks that worked. Navigation through the book was no problem.

The book is well written overall. The writer's style is straightforward and clear. There are occasional typos and words that feel misplaced, as in the following sentence: "The reality is though that the possibilities and process of research writing are more complicated and much richer than that." There should be commas around the word "though", and the tone is fairly conversational. These are extremely minor issues.

The examples feel inclusive and I was not aware of any cultural insensitivity in the book overall.

The book is really helpful! I particularly appreciate the sections on how to write an annotated bib and a good thesis statement, and I think the sections on writing a category/evaluation of sources, working thesis statement, and antithesis exercise are unique in the large field of writing textbooks. The book contains no instruction on grammatical conventions, style, clarity, rhetoric, how to emphasize or de-emphasize points, or other writing tips. In that sense, it is not a great text for a composition class. But I think it's extremely useful as a second resource for such a class, especially for classes that teach argumentation or those that require an analytic essay. I feel it is most appropriate for science students - nursing, psychology, medicine, biology, sociology. It is less likely to be useful for a general WR 121 class, or for a bunch of English majors who largely use primary sources.

Reviewed by Jess Magaña, Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City on 6/19/18

This is a comprehensive introduction to planning and writing research papers. The suggested activities seem helpful, and the lack of an index or glossary does not interfere with understanding. read more

This is a comprehensive introduction to planning and writing research papers. The suggested activities seem helpful, and the lack of an index or glossary does not interfere with understanding.

The information is accurate and straightforward.

Some information is out of date, such as the section regarding email, but the main concepts are well explained and relevant. An instructor could easily substitute a lecture or activity with updated information.

The clarity is excellent.

There are no inconsistencies.

The text is organized in a way that lends itself to changing the order of chapters and adding and subtracting topics to suit the needs of each class.

The progression of chapters is logical.

Interface rating: 5

The "hyperlinks" helpfully direct readers to related topics (although these are not actual links in the online version), which contributes to the modularity of the text.

There are a few errors, but none that significantly obscure meaning.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

This text could use updated examples showing greater diversity in authors and work. I recommend instructors find supplementary examples relevant to their classes.

I intend to use this text in my courses, supplemented with a few activities and more diverse examples to suit my students' needs.

Reviewed by Sheila Packa, Instructor, Lake Superior College on 2/1/18

The text is a comprehensive guide to research for students in College Composition courses. The text is concise and interesting. Critical thinking, research and writing argument are integrated into his suggested assignments. The author covers... read more

The text is a comprehensive guide to research for students in College Composition courses. The text is concise and interesting. Critical thinking, research and writing argument are integrated into his suggested assignments.

The author covers the research question, library resources, how to paraphrase and use quotes, and collaborative writing projects. There are suggested exercises in the process of research, such as a topic proposal, a guide to developing a strong thesis statement, a full exploration of refutation (called the antithesis), the critique or rhetorical analysis, the annotated bibliography, and a guide to help students to accumulate a good assortment of sources. MLA and APA documentation is covered. Note that this text is published in 2007. Therefore, I recommend the use of MLA 8 Handbook for up-to-date guidelines for correct documentation. The Research Paper is full explained. In the chapter, Alternate Ways to Present Research, the author focuses on a Portfolio. He discusses web publication of research and poster sessions.

I value the clarity of ideas. The text is error-free, and I like the example essays written by students that will serve to inspire students.

The content is relevant. The author guides students through the process in a way that is easy to understand and also academically rigorous. The MLA 8 Handbook is a needed supplement (and that is affordable).

The writing is clear and concise. The organization of the chapters is logical and leads the students through steps in the process of research, writing a reasoned argument, and professional presentation of the research.

Terminology is clear and the framework for research is clear and sensible.

The book's modularity is definitely a strength. It's possible to use chapters of the text without using the entire book and to omit chapters that are not a focus of the instructor.

This book has a logical arrangement of chapters and the assignments are valuable.

The interface is great. It's readable online or in pdf form.

No grammatical errors. There is one detail that reflects changing rules of documentation. In MLA, titles of books, magazines, and journals are now italicized instead of underlined. In this text, they are underlined.

The text is free of bias or stereotypes.

Reviewed by Jennie Englund, Instructor, Composition I & II, Rogue Community College, Oregon on 8/15/17

Twelve chapters are broken into multiple parts. On Page 3 of the Introduction, the text emphasizes its purpose as an "introduction to academic writing and research." The following chapters present more than substantial information to give... read more

Twelve chapters are broken into multiple parts.

On Page 3 of the Introduction, the text emphasizes its purpose as an "introduction to academic writing and research." The following chapters present more than substantial information to give introductory (even well into master) research writers a foundation of the basics, as well as some detail. It differentiates itself as "Academic" research writing through thesis, evidence, and citation. Two of these concepts are revisted in the conclusion. The third (thesis) has its own section, which this reviewer will use in class.

I'm grateful to have reviewed an earlier electronic text. This provided the ability to compare/contrast, and note that this particular text was more comprehensive and in-depth than the guide I had previously reviewed (which was more of a framework, good in its own right.)

Had the guide contained a thorough section on revision, I'd give it a perfect score! Thus, the book very very nearly does what it sets out to do; it provides most of The Process of Research Writing.

Retrieval dates are no longer used on the APA References page. This reviewer would have preferred titles italicized instead of underlined.

The text opens with an introduction of the project, by its author. The project began in 2000 as a text for a major publishing house, but eventually landed via author's rights as an electronic text. Therefore, essentially, the book has already been around quite a while. This reviewer concludes that time, thought, and execution went into publishing the material, and predicts its popularity and usability will grow.

Timeless, the guide could have been used with small updates twenty years ago, and could be used with updates twenty years from now.

The guide could be used as the sole text in a composition course, supplemented by more formal (as well as APA) examples.

The text is organized into 12 chapters; it logically begins with "Thinking Critically about Research," and concludes with "Citing Your Research Using MLA or APA Style." The text includes most of what this reviewer uses to teach academic research writing. However, the book omits the editing/revising process.

The guide poses purposeful questions.

On Page 7 of the Introduction, the text reports being "organized in a 'step-by-step' fashion," with an invitation to the reader to use the book in any order, and revisit passages. The reviewer found the organization to be consistent and as systematic as the actual composition of an academic research paper.

The meat of the text begins with the definition and purpose of "Research." Immediately, a nod to working thesis follows, which is revisited in Chapter 5. Sources are examined and classified into a chart of "Scholarly Versus Non-scholarly or Popular Sources." The segment on "Using the Library" would complement a course or class period on library usage.

The Table of Contents is fluid and logical. Within the text, concepts are revisited and built upon, which the reviewer appreciates. Examples and exercises are given.

Chapter 10 contains an outline of a student research paper (which follows). The paper examines the problems with and solutions for university athletics. The paper is in MLA format. Tone is less formal than this reviewer would use as an example of academic research writing. The reviewer would have welcomed an example of an APA paper, as well.

The last chapter fully realizes instruction introduced at the beginning: citation defines academic writing, and academic writers credit their sources, and present evidence to their readers. I wish this last part emphasized thesis again, too, but in all, it is a very structured, reader-friendly guide.

Charts are integrated and understandable, though the majority of the book is text.

This review found some grammatical errors including capitalization. Book/journal/magazine/newspaper titles are underlined in lieu of italicized.

Student examples include Daniel Marvins, Ashley Nelson, Jeremy Stephens, Kelly Ritter, Stuart Banner, and Casey Copeman. Most examples of citations are from male authors. Text would benefit from multi-cultural authors. Examples/topics include The Great Gatsby,African-American Physicians and Drug Advertising, Cyberculture, ADHD, Diabetes, Student-athletes, and Drunk Driving.Examples are culturally appropriate and multi-disciplinary. Consistent pronoun used: he/him/his

Third-person narration is used; the author addresses the reader directly (and informally). While this perhaps makes a connection between the author and the reader, and adds to understanding, it does not reflect academic research writing, and may confuse beginning writers?

Chapter 5, "Writing a Working Thesis," is among the most clear, comprehensive, and straightforward instruction on the topic this reviewer has seen. I will use this section in my Composition I and II courses, as well as Chapters 1, 3, and 12. I wish this form had a place to rate usability. In that case, this guide would score highly. I commend Dr. Krause's execution and composition, and applaud his sharing this at no cost with the academic community.

Reviewed by Marie Lechelt, ESL/English Instructor and Writing Center Co-director, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

"The Process of Research Writing" is a textbook that includes all of the major topics covered in most college research writing courses. The style of writing makes it easily understood by students. Depending on your focus in your writing class,... read more

"The Process of Research Writing" is a textbook that includes all of the major topics covered in most college research writing courses. The style of writing makes it easily understood by students. Depending on your focus in your writing class, you may want to supplement this text with more about argumentative writing. Other writing models, homework exercises, and classroom activities found by the instructor would also compliment the use of this text. While I would not use this textbook in my course from start to finish, I would jump around and use a variety of sections from it to teach research writing. This text could be used for a beginning writing class or a second semester writing course. Based on my students writing experiences and abilities, I would eliminate or include certain sections. There is no index or glossary included. The hyperlinks to other sections also do not work.

The content is accurate and error-free. I didn't detect any biased information either. The MLA and APA information have changed since this book was published. The peer review work, plagiarism, critiquing sources, and many more of the topics are almost exactly what I teach to my students. This format will work well for them.

While most research writing content does not change over time, there are many parts of this book that could be updated. These include examples (The Great Gatsby), hyperlinks, and references to technology. The technology aspect is especially important. Since technology is constantly changing, most textbooks (print and online) are out of date as soon as they are printed. Because of this, teachers are constantly having to use supplemental material, which is fine. Just like our class websites, we have to update this information every semester or even more often. If you choose to use this textbook, keep in mind that this will be necessary. The MLA/APA information is also out of date, but this is also to be expected.

Clarity is one of the benefits of this textbook. Although the style is somewhat informal, it included appropriate topics and terminology for students learning to write research essays. Students can understand the topics with one or two readings and discuss the topics in class. There were a few places that seemed like common knowledge for students at this level, like the library or using computers. Unfortunately, we do still have students who do not come to us having already learned this information. So, I don't think these sections would have a negative impact on other students. Students can also be given optional sections to read, or as I plan to do, the teacher can skip around and only assign some sections.

The majority of the terminology is common knowledge in research writing teaching. The text is fairly informal in writing style, which I believe is an advantage for students. Many times, students will read a text and then I will need to explain the terminology or ideas in depth in my lectures. Since I prefer to complete activities and work on students' writing in class, instead of lecturing, this book will work well. The chapter on the "Antithesis" was new to me. While I have taught these ideas, I have not used this term before. This is a chapter I may not use and instead include supplemental material of my own.

The chapters are divided clearly and could be separated quite easily to use as individual units in a writing class. If the hyperlinks worked though, they would be helpful. Exercises build upon one another, so one could not assign a later exercise without students first understanding the other sections of the text. I plan to use this text in a research writing class, and I will be skipping around and only using some sections. I do not believe there will be any problem with this. While students may at first feel that starting on Chapter 4 might be strange, they are very adaptive and should have no difficulties with this format.

The Table of Contents is clear and easily understood. Each chapter follows a logical sequence, and students will be able to transition from one topic to another without difficulty. The use of charts, headings, bold, highlighting, and some other visual aids help the reader to understand what is most important to remember. Although, this could be improved upon with the use of color and graphics. While the content is valuable, I would most likely skip around when using this book in the classroom. While the author begin with an introduction and then jumps right into research, I focus on topic selection and thesis writing before research begins. Of course, as the author mentions, students will go back to their thesis and research many times before finishing the writing process.

The text is easily navigated, and students would be able to follow the topics throughout. The lack of graphics and color is noticeable and detracts from the content. In a world of advanced technology where students click on hundreds of websites with amazing content each week, online textbooks need to meet this standard. This textbook is similar to a traditional textbook. Some links are also inactive.

There were some typos and small grammatical errors but no glaring instances. They also did not impact understanding.

This book contained no offensive language or examples. However, we have a lot of diversity in our classrooms, and this is not reflected in the book. Expanding the examples or including links to diverse examples would be helpful.

I will be using this text in a second semester writing class. It has valuable information about research writing. I believe it could also be used for a first semester writing class. As mentioned above, I will use sections of the text and skip around to accommodate the needs of my students. Supplemental materials will also be needed to meet current technology needs.

Reviewed by Betsy Goetz, English Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

The text covers all subject areas appropriately. read more

The text covers all subject areas appropriately.

Overall, the text is accurate.

Relevant and current.

I liked the clarity of the text, especially the specific exercises for students to apply the theory they have learned.

This text is consistent -- good terminology!

Clear sections to focus on key points of research writing.

Well organized.

Not confusing

Overall, lacking grammatical errors.

Relevant -- research writing and thesis building are timeless.

Reviewed by Karen Pleasant, Adjunct Instructor, Rogue Community College on 4/11/17

The textbook covered the basics of writing a research paper (the term "essay"is preferred by the author) and would be appropriate for an introductory college writing course, such as WR 121 or WR 122. A table of content is provided, but there is... read more

The textbook covered the basics of writing a research paper (the term "essay"is preferred by the author) and would be appropriate for an introductory college writing course, such as WR 121 or WR 122. A table of content is provided, but there is no glossary. The textbook guides a student from exploring the initial topic selection through the finished product, although I would have liked the use of citations to be covered in more depth. If I chose this as the textbook for my class I would also need to add supplemental materials about thoroughly developing an argument as well as revising a paper.

The author presented the material in an unbiased manner and does so in a way that provides high readability for students with little to no background in writing a research paper. Excellent examples are provided to reinforce concepts and thoughtful, creative collaborative exercises round out each chapter to give practice in skill mastery. Both MLA and APA formatting styles are included, but the APA section needs to be updated. The book was published in 2007 and many of the APA guidelines have changed., including the preference for using italics versus underlining for book and journal titles.

Each chapter is self-contained and stands alone and , therefore, could easily be updated. Most of the information is relevant and could be used indefinitely. I like that Chapter 11 recommended alternate ways to present the research and suggested more contemporary technology based methods. Chapter 12, about APA and MLA citations, is the chapter that currently needs to be updated and would need to be checked for accuracy annually against the latest APA & MLA guidelines. As it reads, I would handout current materials for APA citation sessions and not use this chapter in the book.

The book is well organized and is very user friendly. I think students would enjoy reading it and be able to relate readily to the content. Examples given and exercises provided help to clarify the content and reinforce the concepts for students. The textbook flows well from selection of initial topic ideas to finished product and will help students to work through the process of writing a research paper.

New terms are thoroughly explained and are used consistently throughout the textbook. The knowledge students gain as they progress through the book feels logical and organized in a usable fashion.

The text is organized so that each chapter stands alone and the order the information is presented can be easily modified to fit the needs of an instructor. The book is that rare combination of being equally functional for both student and instructor.

The topics are presented as needed to guide students through the process of writing a research paper, but could be done in another order if desired. Bold and boxed items are used to emphasize key concepts and chapter exercises.

The textbook is visually appealing and easy to read with adequate use of white space and varied font sizes. I explored the textbook via the PDF documents, which were easy to download, although the hyperlinks were not accessible.

There were noticeable grammatical errors.

The textbook is inclusive and accessible to all and didn't have any content that could be deemed offensive. The approachable layout and writing style make the textbook relevant to college students from a variety of backgrounds.

I would definitely adopt this open textbook for my writing classes. The author provided some wonderful ideas for teaching about research papers and I found many chapter exercises that I would be willing to incorporate into my class . I am especially intrigued by the use of writing an antithesis paper as a lead in to adding opposition to the research paper and look forward to getting student input and feedback about some of the alternative ways to present their research. Compared to textbooks I have used or perused in the past, this book seems more inviting and user friendly for students new to writing college level research papers.

Reviewed by VINCENT LASNIK, Adjunct Professor, Rogue Community College on 4/11/17

This comprehensiveness is one of the strengths of The Process of Research Writing. The Table of Contents (TOC) is fine—and each separate chapter also reproduces the contents listing from high-lever through low-level subsections at the beginning... read more

This comprehensiveness is one of the strengths of The Process of Research Writing. The Table of Contents (TOC) is fine—and each separate chapter also reproduces the contents listing from high-lever through low-level subsections at the beginning of each chapter. This duplicate listing feature helps orient students to what is covered (and what is not) for every chapter in-context. Yes—It is a fair evaluation that there can generally be easy-to-fix, quickly recognizable updates, enhancements, and notable improvements to virtually any textbook 10-15 years after its initial publication date (particularly related to changing terminology and nomenclature within the dynamic English lexicon, technology applications (databases, websites, ‘search engines,’ current good ‘help sites’ for students learning the latest iteration of APA style for manuscript formatting, in-text citations, and end references, etc.)—and the Krause text is a prime candidate for such a thorough revision. For example, digital object identifiers (the doi was first introduced circa 2000) did not become widely/pervasively established until well into the first decade of the 21st century; the ‘doi’ is an ubiquitous standard today in 2017. Nevertheless, many of the basic (boilerplate) concepts are clearly noted and credibly, coherently explained. The text could use some effective reorganization (as I note elsewhere in my review)—but that is arguably a subjective/personalized perspective more related to the way we approach writing instruction and student academic development at Rogue Community College—and perhaps less of a global/universal criticism.

See my comments in other sections that impact this issue. Overall, Krause’s text appears, “accurate, error-free and unbiased.” There are no obvious problems with this observation/contention. Some of the ‘out-of-date’ specifics in the text need updating as I note in detail in my other comments.

Most of the text describes research-writing strategies that are fairly well-established if not generic to the undergraduate English composition content area; thus, the overall longevity of the existing text is good. I have suggested, however, that any such ‘how-to’ guide should be updated (as this particular version) after its first decade of publication. The content for online research, for example, reflects an early 2000s perspective of emerging technology terms (e.g., defining blogs as “web-logs” is easily 12-15 years behind the use of the term in 2017), and some of the online websites mentioned are no longer relevant. These types of ‘out-of-date’ past-referents/links, however, can be easily updated to 2017+ accuracy. I have made a few suggestions about such an update—including my offer to assist Steve Krause (gratis and pro bono) in this update should my collaboration be desired. Otherwise, Krause might go the more open ‘peer review’ route and assemble a set of active teachers, instructors, and adjunct professors (such as me) who are on the ‘frontlines’ of current praxis for research-based, critical thinking, problem-oriented writing courses across the 11th-12th grade and through the undergraduate and workforce education community.

The text is written is a clear, credible, and cogent prose throughout. This is one of the particular strengths of Krause’s text—and recursively provides an exemplar for well-written composition. On occasion, the clarity for students might be improved by additional ‘real-world examples’ (i.e., more ‘showing rather than mere abstract telling) explicating some obtuse concepts and numerous rules (e.g., for research strategy, proofreading/editing, using search engines and conducting library research, etc.)—but a similar constructive criticism could easily be made of nearly all similar sources.

The text wording, terminology, framework and process emphasis are highly consistent. There are overlaps and dovetailing (i.e., redundancy) in any/every college textbook—but Krause keeps these to a minimum throughout. Some updating of terminology would be appropriate, useful, and needed as I note throughout my OER review.

The text is superb in this regard. The chapters and exercises are highly modular—which supports the customized reorganization I apply myself in my own courses as noted in my other comments. Numerous subheads and special highlighted ‘key points’ textboxes augment this modularity and improve the narrowing of assigned readings, examples, and exercises for most writing courses. The Process of Research Writing is clearly not, “overly self-referential,” and can easily be, “reorganized and realigned with various subunits of a course without presenting much disruption to the reader” by any instructor.

One of the principal weaknesses of the set of chapters is that the given ‘table of contents’ structure is conceptually disjointed—at least insofar as my research writing course is designed. Therefore, to provide a more coherent, logical sequence congruent to the course organization of my Writing 122 (this is an intermediate/advanced-level English Composition II)—it was necessary to assign a completely different order of The Process of Research Writing (Krause, 2007) high-level chapters/pages for weekly course reading assignments as follows:

Week One: Table of Contents; Introduction: Why Write Research Projects?; and Chapter 1: Thinking Critically About Research; Week Two: Chapter 2: Understanding and Using the Library and the Internet for Research. These three starting chapters were reasonable to introduce in Krause’s original sequence. Continuing into Week Two, I also added Chapter 4: How to Collaborate and Write with Others (but I highlighted limited/specific passages only since WR122 does not emphasize collaborative prose composition activities and extensive group-writing projects using such apps as Google Docs). Week Three: I then assigned Chapter 10: The Research Essay—since it was important to orient students to the intrinsic, namesake umbrella concept of researching and writing the research essay—the essential focus of the course I teach. IMPORTANT NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE OER as it exists: Viewed from a course rationale and content/skill acquisition conceptual level—I have no idea why Krause did not place ‘Writing The Research Essay’ as high as Chapter 2. It comes far too late in the book as Chapter 10. This is actually where the chapter belongs (in my view); the other topics in the remaining Chapters’ (2—12) would more cogently and effectively proceed after first exploring the high-level nature of the research essay task in the first place. The subsequent skills for conducting Online Library Research; Quoting, Paraphrasing, Avoiding Plagiarism, creating a testable ‘Working Thesis,’ producing an Annotated Bibliography (some courses also use a précis assignment), Evaluating and Categorizing Sources, etc.—are realistically supporting, scaffolding, and corroborating functional/operational skills designed to design, research, and produce the research-based essay project. Therefore—from a project-based and problem-oriented pedagogical strategy/approach—a sound argument could be proffered that putting Chapter 10 second in a reordered book would help students on many levels (not the least being engaging interest and promoting contextual understanding for why learning the content of the remaining chapters makes sense and can be critical/applicable to the research-writing process.

Continuing on my own WR122 course text-sequence customization—in Week Four—we move into the attribution phase of the writing process in Chapter 3: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism. Logically, we then move (in Week Five) to Chapter 5: The Working Thesis so students can ask significant/original questions and determine a point of departure into their research essay. This seemed like a good time to add the concept of ‘opposition views’ (i.e., counter-claims, rejoinder and rebuttal) discussed in Chapter 8: The Antithesis. In Week Six—we moved into essay formatting, in-text citation and end references, so Chapter 12: Citing Your Research Using MLA or APA Style {(focusing on reading pp. 1-2 (brief overview), and pp. 18-33 about APA style)} was assigned. In addition, students also perused Chapter 7: The Critique preceding a related argumentative assignment (i.e., a movie review project). For Week Seven (concurrent with an annotated bibliography project for the main term paper—students read Chapter 6: The Annotated Bibliography, and Chapter 9: The Categorization and Evaluation (of sources) that was ostensibly/logically relevant to the annotated bibliography project. Concluding the course for Weeks Eight-Eleven—there were new required readings. Students were instructed to review previous readings in The Process of Research Writing (Krause, 2007)—time permitting. Also Note: Chapter 11: Alternative Ways to Present Your Research is completely optional reading. It is not particularly applicable to this course; there is a student’s self-reflection about the research process on pp. 3-11 that may have some nominal merit, but it notes MLA style (versus my course’s use of APA 6th edition style only) and is in any case not required.

The text is not fancy; standard black and white (high-contrast) font used throughout. For emphasis of key points, Krause does use special ‘highlight boxes’ with gray background, a thick black stroke on the outside of the rectangular textbox. While the gray level might be lowered (in the update) for improved contrast—the true-black, bulleted, bolded key-terms are easy to perceive/read. The only criticism I have is the distracting overuse of quotation mark punctuation for emphasis; this should be corrected in any updated version. Otherwise, most of the book’s interface presentation supports a good user (student) experience, good printability, and good accessibility per ADA and general disability (e.g., visually impaired learners) protocols.

There are no significant/glaring occurrences of grammatical errors in the text. I am not a ‘grammar snob’ in any case. The prose seems clear, cogent, thoughtful, well-written; it generally uses solid grammar, mechanics, and punctuation. The exception is the overuse of a somewhat casual/conversational tone combined with (what is more of a recognizable issue) a distracting overuse of quotation marks—many of which are simply neither needed nor helpful; most could be quickly removed with an immediate improvement to readability.

I do not see significant, relevant, or glaring faux pas pertaining to any biased disrespect for multiculturalism. All persons (e.g., races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and cultural backgrounds) are equally respected and appreciated. The content area (English composition) is very amenable to a relatively generic, culture-free perspective—and Krause’s examples and prose is well-within any applicable standards of post-modern, scholarly, formal non-fiction in written Standard English.

[1] The Process of Research Writing was ostensibly presented/published to Creative Commons in 2007. No identifiable part/portion of the original edition text appears to have been updated (changed, modified, or improved) since then (i.e., at least 10 years); This is perhaps the single, most apparent flaw/weakness for this textbook. An in-depth revision to 2017 post-rhetorical model essay-writing standards and APA conventions would be invaluable—and quite bluntly—is sorely required. A newly updated Version 2.0 for 2017-18 should be critically planned (and scheduled or already ‘in progress’ if it is not already).

[2] There are many insightful, practical, and high-value approaches to the research writing process; in this regard—the nominal OER title is superbly appropriate for late high-school and beginning college (undergraduate) research essay projects. Even though some of the technical components (e.g., APA style) require updating/revision (which makes basic, reasonable sense after a ‘decade on the shelf’ for any academic research writing source)—Krause’s chapters can effectively replace many expensive, glossy college entry-level textbooks! After presenting the core concepts in a coherent and self-evident manner, Krause supplies a plethora of examples to illustrate those concepts. Then (and this is one of the true strengths of this OER)—each chapter (particularly Chapters 5-10) highlights student-oriented exercises to practice those same core concepts). Because of this latter emphasis—the Krause OER is ‘learner-centered’ (as opposed to ‘content centered’), problem-oriented and performance-oriented as well—providing opportunities for creative, resourceful teachers to adapt/adopt the OER to course assignments.

[3] There does not appear to be a single (standalone) PDF for this OER. This is a notable flaw/weakness for this textbook. Conversely, however, although a single PDF would have some convenient ‘easier downloading’ advantages for students—having separate chapters affords every teacher to create a customized chapter-order (as I have efficiently done to correspond to my course design). The chapters support excellent modularity and the accompanying exercises/examples demonstrate the concepts Krause explicates with a fine degree of granularity for any teacher. Thus—integrating any textbooks or teaching/learning resources (like OERs) always has tradeoffs—plusses and minuses, positives and negatives. The obvious key, therefore, is taking the liberty of using the OER as a supporting scaffold or buttress to an instructor’s original design concept—rather than the foundation around which a course can be designed.

[4] Some minor weaknesses for prose instruction are (a) Krause’s acceptance of passive, sophomoric signal phrasing (i.e., According to X…)—as opposed to strong, active voice such as ‘’X found…’; and (b) a general overuse of quotation marks throughout the book. This is not meant as a harsh criticism—merely an observation that readability could be improved with a newer version that eliminates most quotation marks (Note: In APA style—these punctuation symbols are only used for verbatim quotes. This makes for a cleaner, clearer manuscript).

[5] One of the solid/helpful strengths of the book is a relatively accurate presentation of APA style for in-text citation and end references (Chapter 12). It appears that like many academics—Krause is more familiar and comfortable with the Modern Language Association’s MLA style/formatting. No problem there—I was simply trained on APA beginning in 1984 so it is native to me; I also use the latest version of APA style in all of my writing (college composition) courses. Thus—it should come as no surprise there are a number of obvious APA-associated inaccuracies including (but limited to): (a) meekly accepting ‘n.d.’ (no date) and ‘n.a.’ (no author) sources when a little investigative research by the student (and adherence to the APA rule hierarchy for dates and authors) would easily come up with a sound date and author. Another error (b) seems to be more typographic (formatting) and/or refers to an earlier edition of APA style: the end references in the PDF (and html versions?) use underline in place of italics. The 2011 APA 6th edition style does not use underline in the end references. There are other small (faux pas) errors such as (c) noting generally inaccessible proprietary online databases and servers (again—no longer done in APA). A thorough, meticulous updating of this OER source would probably take care of many of these APA-error issues. I’d be happy to work with Steve on this update at any time.

[6] I use Amy Guptill’s Writing in College: From Competence to Excellence by Amy Guptill of State University of New York (2016) for my English Composition I course that emphasizes general essay writing and a simple research-supported argumentative essay. I teach that course using the following assigned readings: Week One: Chapter 1 (Really? Writing? Again?), pp. 1-7, and Chapter 2 (What Does the Professor Want? Understanding the Assignment), pp. 9-18; Week Two: Chapter 6 (Back to Basics: The Perfect Paragraph), pp. 48-56; Chapter 7 (Intros and Outros), pp. 57-64; Week Four: Chapter 9 (Getting the Mechanics Right), pp. 75-85; Week Five: Chapter 8 (Clarity and Concision), pp. 65-73; Week Six: Chapter 3 (Constructing the Thesis and Argument—From the Ground Up), pp. 19-27; Week Seven: Chapter 4 (Secondary Sources in Their Natural Habitats), pp. 28-37; Week Eight: Chapter 5 (Listening to Sources, Talking to Sources), pp. 38-47. I then switch over to Krause’s OER for my English Composition II course. At Rogue Community College, Writing 122 emphasizes intermediate essay writing and analytical, more rigorous and original research-based essays involving critical thinking. I completely reordered the chapters as described above to fit into my course design. I like Krause’s individual ‘modular’ chapters—but the particular ‘scope and sequence’ he uses are debatable. Overall, however, The Process of Research Writing easily and effectively substitutes/replaces other costly tomes from for-profit academic publishers—even those that offer bundled DVDs and online-access to proprietary tutorial sources. Used in conjunction with other freely available PDF OERs, websites, YouTube videos, tutorial/practice sites from innumerable libraries, blogs (e.g., the APA Blog is particularly helpful)—as well as original/customized sources created by individual instructors for their own courses—the Krause book offers a good, solid baseline for developing research-based writing competencies particularly appropriate for the first two years of college.

Reviewed by Amy Jo Swing, English Instructor, Lake Superior College on 4/11/17

This book covers most of the main concepts of research writing: thesis, research, documenting, and process. It's weak on argument though, which is standard in most research composition texts. The book provides a clear index so finding information... read more

This book covers most of the main concepts of research writing: thesis, research, documenting, and process. It's weak on argument though, which is standard in most research composition texts. The book provides a clear index so finding information is relatively easy. The other weak spot is on evaluation evidence: there is a section on it but not comprehensive examples. Students in general needs lots of practice on how to evaluate and use information.

The information is accurate mostly except for the APA and MLA section. Writing and research writing haven't changed that much in a long time. It's more the technology and tools that change.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

The ideas about research and writing in general are fine, However, the references to technology and documentation are very out of date, over 10 years so. Students use technology very differently than described in this text, and the technologies themselves have changed. For example, the author talks about floppy disks and AOL messenger but not about Google Drive, Wikipedia, Prezi, or how to use phones and tablets while researching. Our students are digital natives and need to understand how to use their devices to write and research.

The book is quite readable in general. Concepts are easy to understand. Sometimes, they are almost too simple like the section explaining what a library is. Students might not be sophisticated library users, but they understand in general how they work. The chapters are concise, which is nice for student use too.

Except for pronoun use, the book is consistent in tone and terms. Not all the terms are ones I use in my own teaching, and it would be nice to see explanation of more argument/research frameworks like the Toulmin Model of argument.

The chapters are pretty self-contained and clear as individual units. I can see including certain chapters and leaving out others that aren't as relevant to my teaching style or assignments. One could easily assign the chapters in a different order, but students ask lots of questions when you assign chapter 6 first and then weeks later, assign chapter 2 or 3.

The basic chapters make sense in terms of how they are created and categorized but the order is problematic if an instructor were to assign them in the order presented. For example, the chapter on creating an annotated bibliography comes before the one on documenting (APA/MLA). Students can't complete an annotated bibliography without knowing how to cite sources. Same with evaluating sources. There is so much information on locating sources before any clear mention is made of how to evaluate them. I find that is the weak spot with students. If they learn how to evaluate sources, it's easier to find and locate and research effectively.

Not many images. Students really like info-graphics, pictures, and multi-media. The hyperlinks to other sections of the book do not work in either the PDF or HTML versions. I do like some of the illustrations like mapping and how research is more a web than a linear process. For an online textbook, there aren't a lot of hyperlinks to outside resources (of which there are so many like Purdue's OWL and the Guide to Grammar and Writing).

There were quite a few errors : comma errors, spelling (affect/effect), some pronoun agreement errors, capitalization errors with the title in Chapter Four. The author also uses passive voice quite a bit, which is inconsistent with the general familiar tone. In some chapters, there is constant switching between first, second, and third person. I focus much on point of view consistency in my students' writing, and this would not be a great model for that.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

There is no cultural offensiveness but not much diversity in examples and students names either. Marginalized students (of color, with disabilities, of different sexuality or gender) would not see themselves reflected much.

This is a good basic reference on the process of writing and research. However, it would not be too useful without updated information on technology and documentation. As a web-based text, it reads more like a traditional physical textbook.

Reviewed by Jocelyn Pihlaja, Instructor, Lake Superior College on 2/8/17

The length and scope of this book are appropriate for a semester-long research writing course, with twelve chapters that move from foundational concepts into more specific skills that are needed for the crafting of a paper incorporating MLA or APA... read more

The length and scope of this book are appropriate for a semester-long research writing course, with twelve chapters that move from foundational concepts into more specific skills that are needed for the crafting of a paper incorporating MLA or APA citation. In particular, I like that the early chapters cover the questions of "Why Write Research Papers?" and how to think critically, the middle chapters provide specific activities in the skills of quoting and paraphrasing, and the later chapters bring in assignments (such as writing an annotated bibliography) that help students practice and build content for their ultimate paper.There is no index or glossary to this book; however, the table of contents provides an overview of the chapters that guides navigation well.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

In terms of the thinking, this book's information is logical and sound. The explanations of concepts and activities read easily and do a fine job of explicating the why and how of research writing. In a few places, however, the word "effected" is used when it should be "affected." Editing also is needed when the author uses phrases such as "in the nutshell" instead of "in a nutshell." As well, in Chapter 4, there is pronoun/antecedent disagreement when the author uses "their" to refer to "each member." Also, each chapter contains at least one "Hyperlink" to supplemental information, yet the hyperlinks are dead. For the most part, the text is clean and well edited, but we English teachers are line-editing sticklers, so even small, occasional errors stand out. Overall: the ideas presented are accurate and free of bias, yet there are a few, niggling errors.

When it comes to relevance and longevity, this book is problematic. In fact, it is so outdated as to be unusable, at least for this instructor. Certainly, the concepts presented are solid; they don't change with passing years. However, typographically, the book is passe, as it uses two spaces after periods. Even more troubling is that it refers to the Internet as "new" and comes from a point of view that sees this thing called "the World Wide Web" as novel while also noting students might want to rely on microfilm and microfiche during their research. In another example, the author suggests to students that a benefit of writing on computers is that they can share their work with each other on disc or through email. Truly, such references make the book unusable for a class in 2017. Another issue is that the Modern Language Association has updated its guidelines several times since this book's publication; ideally, a text used in a research writing class would cover, if not the latest guidelines, at least the previous version of the guidelines. A full rewrite of the book is necessary before it could be adopted. As the book currently stands, students would roll their eyes at the antiquated technological language, and the teacher would need to apologize for asking students to read a text that is so out-of-date.

The writing in this book is both accessible and intelligent. It's eminently readable. Specifically, the inclusion of things like an "Evidence Quality and Credibility Checklist" at the end of Chapter 1 and the continual use of grey boxes that highlight major concepts is very good. Also extremely helpful are the examples of student writing that end nearly every chapter; these models demonstrate to readers what is expected from each assignment. Finally, the explanations of quoting and paraphrasing are superior -- so clear, so easy for students to digest. Were it not outdated in terms of technological references, I would definitely consider using this book in my classes due to the clarity of the prose.

Consistency rating: 3

For the most part, the book is well structured and consistent in its design and layout. Each chapter provides general explanation of a concept, moves into a specific assignment, and ends with an example or two of student responses to that assignment. Very quickly, readers know what to expect from each chapter, and there's something comforting about the predictability of the layout, especially in a book that is being read on a screen, using scrolling. When it comes to the terminology, my only note would be that the book starts out using a relaxed second-person point of view, addressing students as "you," but then, at the end of Chapter 2, the author suddenly begins also using the first-person "I." This first-person point of view continues throughout the book, so it becomes consistent from that point on, but for me as a reader, I never quite adjusted to that level of informality, particularly when all the sentences using "I" could easily be re-written in the third person. Before reading this text, I hadn't really considered what I like in a book, but now I know: because I want the text to model the ideal, I would prefer a more formal (and consistent) point of view. Today's students struggle to create essays that don't include "you" or "I" -- even when they very consciously are trying to avoid those words. Learning to write from the third person POV is surprisingly challenging. Therefore, my personal preference would be a textbook that consistently models this approach.

The chapters in this book are of a perfect length -- long enough to develop the ideas and present comprehensive explanations yet short enough to be ingested and excised. Put another way, I could see grabbing bits and pieces of this text and using them in my classes. For instance, without adopting the entire text, I still could pull the instructions for the Anti-Thesis essay or the Annotated Bibliography, or I could use the explanation of the purpose of collaboration. Indeed, the chapters and exercises in this book are tight "modules" that allow an instructor to pick and choose or to reorganize the chapters to better fit with an individual course structure. For me, although I won't use this entire text, I can envision incorporating pieces of it into my teaching.

The organization of this book is one of its greatest strengths. It starts with a broad overview of research into an exploration of the process behind seeking out reputable sources, weaves in a few shorter essay assignments that serve as building blocks for a longer paper, and culminates with the ideas for a final, capstone research project -- something that naturally grows out of all the previous chapters. Each chapter in the text flows easily out of the chapter before it. One of this text's greatest strengths is how each successive chapter builds on the concepts presented in the previous chapters.

As noted earlier, the hyperlinks in the book don't work. As well, the screenshots included in the book are blurry and add little, except frustration, to the content. Outside of those issues, though, the book is physically easy to read and navigate, largely thanks to the easy clicking between the table of contents and individual chapters.

As suggested earlier, the book, as a whole, reads easily, yet there are some errors with the homonyms "effected" and "affected," along with pronoun/antecedent disagreement. I also noticed a handful of places where there are extra spaces around commas (in addition to the use of two spaces after periods).

This text is definitely not insensitive or offensive; its tone is fair and balanced, free of bias. On the other hand, this book does not really bring in examples that address diversity. Students reading this book will not see acknowledgment of different races, ethnicities, sexual preferences, or personal histories. Thus, in addition to updating the references to technology, if this book were rewritten, it also could more deliberately address this lack. As it is, the content of this book does feel whitewashed and free of cultural relevance.

There is a lot of promise in this text because the explanations and assignments are so good. But unless it is updated, I don’t see it as usable in a current classroom.

Reviewed by Leana Dickerson, Instructor , Linn Benton Community College on 2/8/17

The author certainly outlines and examines elements of research writing, and does so in a very clear, organized, and thoughtful way. There is no glossary or index included in the text, but the chapters and headings in the table of contents and at... read more

The author certainly outlines and examines elements of research writing, and does so in a very clear, organized, and thoughtful way. There is no glossary or index included in the text, but the chapters and headings in the table of contents and at the beginning of each section very clearly outline what is to be expected from the text. Most all of the concepts are very thoroughly explained and examined including topics that typically are glossed over in research writing texts, including the opposition to argument, close reading, and the importance of research writing to a variety of career pathways. Although thorough in what is present, there are some issues that I would want to touch on with my research students including developing effective argument, logical organization, and examples of the revision process.

The information in this text is accurate and adequately explained. It seems readily accessible for any college age student, but doesn’t expect students to come with a background in research or writing. MLA formatting for works cited pages is up to date, and even addresses the fact that the format for citation changes regularly and points to appropriate resources outside of the text. The only formatting issue that I noticed were some in-text citations (examples throughout early chapters) that included a comma which is no longer expected by the MLA. In the works cited section (and throughout, in examples) when referring to book titles, the author does use the underline function instead of an italicized book title; the author also refers to the use of either italic or underlined differentiation, yet MLA suggests italics in text form.

The content of this text is very straight forward and although essentially up to date, may need updates as relevant technology develops. Updates should be simple and clear to implement as needed because of the strict organization of each chapter.

I found the content clarity in this text to be refreshing for college age students. Often, as an instructor, I ask my students to read a text and then I must re-visit the content in lecture format to ensure that my students are not lost on terminology or foundational knowledge. This text does not assume any prior knowledge from the reader, but also does not feel rudimentary. The formatting and highlighted importance of some information also provided clarity and consistency throughout. The author paced information well, building on major concepts from the beginning and returning to them throughout. The final stages of the text bring students to a major essay that easily shows how each concept included throughout the text can weave into a larger project.

This text is consistent, and feels organized with format, terminology, and the building of content from beginning to end.

The sections in this text are easily broken into segments that can be taught or read at any point throughout the writing process. The text does build on exercises from the beginning to the end, but each of these can be taken out of a linear timeline and used for multiple kinds of projects. The author actually refers to this organization in text, making it clear how each element can work alone or for a streamlined project.

Concepts build upon one another, and yet can be returned to (or jumped to) out of order and still be easy to access and utilize. The text is broken up nicely with bolded, bulleted, or boxed items which designate a stopping point, a discussion to consider, or important details or concepts to focus on.

The layout and navigation of this text online is very accessible, organized, and easy to read. The text PDFs often open in a full browser window, other times they open as PDF documents, but either way include a clean, streamlined format. The text does not seem to be able to be downloaded, making it potentially difficult for students to access without internet access. One issue that I did encounter was that in PDF format, or in html, hyperlinks do not function.

The text is clear, free of grammatical errors, and flows well.

This text is relevant to all audiences and very approachable for college age students.

I found this text to be a refreshing change from what is typically find in research textbooks; it’s relevance to more than just the assignment will help students connect research to the broader concept of academia and other facets of their lives. The antithesis section is a useful way for students to really engage with an opposing opinion and how they can then incorporate that into a successful research project. Also, the differing ways of presenting research I found to be useful for students to think about their project beyond a stapled stack of pages, and to expand that to differing modes of communication and presentation. I look forward to being able to use this text with students.

Reviewed by Samuel Kessler, Postdoctoral Fellow, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University on 2/8/17

"The Process of Research Writing" covers most of the areas students need to understand as they begin research writing at a college level. It has explanations of theses, bibliographies, citations, outlines, first paragraphs, etc. There is no index... read more

"The Process of Research Writing" covers most of the areas students need to understand as they begin research writing at a college level. It has explanations of theses, bibliographies, citations, outlines, first paragraphs, etc. There is no index or glossary, the latter especially being something that would have been very helpful and easy to put together. Krause has many useful definitions and quick-help guides throughout the text, but they are so scattered and ineffectively labeled that it can be very difficult to find them without reading through whole chapters in one's search. On the whole, buried inside these pages, is a very effective guides to *teaching* about research writing. In truth, this book is a teacher's introduction to a class (or, more realistically, three or four class sessions) devoted to college-level academic writing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of words that one has to get through to find all these subject, which can make for tough going.

Based on the questions and errors I see my students making, Krause has done a strong job of highlighting the basics of proper academic research. He spends much time on sources, especially on learning to differentiate between scholarly, trade, and journalistic sources, as well as how to steer clear and note the signs of online schlock (i.e. much of the internet). His tips for peer-to-peer editing and self-reflexive assignments are just the sort of things our students needs help working on.

This is a strange book. The portions that are about implementing class assignments or explaining terms like thesis and antithesis, as well as the examples of an outline or a good first paragraph, are all excellent tools for a classroom.

But there are so many instances of irrelevant or outdates explanations. No college student today needs to read about why writing on a computer is a useful thing to do. No student needs to read about how email can be a tool for academic exchange. A section on using computers for research? On how to copy and paste within a word document? (And no-one calls it the "World Wide Web".) These are issues for the late 90s, not for students in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

There is also a fair amount that is personal and peculiar to the author: a discussion of why he uses the term "research essay" instead of "research paper"? That is just wasted space, and actually without the argumentative merits of a research thesis that he had been teaching up to that point.

For students at research universities, or even at second-tier state and private colleges, the information about libraries and library catalogues changes so quickly that I could never assign those passages. Instead, we'll spend class time looking at our specific library interface. And often, so much material is being sent off-site these days that in many humanities fields its not even possible to scan the shelves any longer. And in science, books are almost irrelevant: online access journals are where the latest research is stored. A bound edition of *Science* from the 1970s contains very little that's important for a scientific research paper written in 2016--unless that paper is about the history of some form of experiment.

Krause writes in a folksy, breezy second-person. Now, so does Tom Friedman of the Times, though that is one of the main criticisms of his otherwise insights books. Krause has a tendency to be overly wordy. This book should more closely resemble Hemingway than Knausgaard in order to be practical. For students who have Facebook etc. open while they're reading this book, every sentence that's not directly relevant will make their minds wander. There are so many sentences that simply need to be cut. To use this book, I'd need to cut and paste just the relevant passages. And without an index or glossary, assigning sections to students is very hard.

"The Process of Research Writing" is internally consistent. Krause maintains the same tone throughout, and defines terms as he goes along. The chapters vary considerably in length, with the short chapters always being more useful and focused, with less superfluous verbiage and fewer authorial quirks.

Modularity rating: 2

"The Process of Research Writing" is a very difficult text to use. The HTML and PDF versions are identical, which defeats the unique way the internet functions. I read this book on both Safari and Chrome, and in neither browser do the hyperlinks work. The tables of content at the heads of each chapter do not link to their respective sections. The projects, assignments, and definitions do not appear in different windows, which would make them possible to keep open while continuing on in the book. There are many instances in which moving back and forth between sections would be very helpful, and that is simply not possible without having multiple windows of the same book open and going between them that way--something that is very clumsy. And again, there are so many superfluous words that even assigning specific chapters means getting through a lot of talk before actually encountering the various hints, tricks, and explanations that are important for learning how to do college-level research.

"The Process of Research Writing" reads like a series of lectures that are meant to be give in a large lecture class, with assignments appended throughout and at the ends. The order of the books is, overall, what one would expect and need for teaching the basics. However, there is a good deal in Chapter 10 that should have appeared earlier (outlines, for instance), and that becomes part of one long chapter that is difficult to use and should have been divided into smaller sections.

As mentioned, in neither Safari nor Chrome do the hyperlinks work. And there appears to have been no planning for links from the chapter tables-of-content to their various associated sections. This makes it very difficult to get between sections or to return to where one was after going somewhere else in the book. Further, there are many links on the internet that remain stable over long periods of time. The Library of Congress, for instance, about which there is a section concerning its cataloguing system, should have a link. As should WorldCat, which for many people who do not have access to a major research library is the best place for learning about texts. Many services like LexusNexus, ABC Clio, and the NY Times archive all also maintain stable websites that should be externally linked.

Except for a smattering of typos, the book has fine (though informal) grammar. This is not a text that could also be used to demonstrate high-level academic writing.

There is nothing culturally offensive here in any way.

In many ways, this is a much better book for teachers of first-year students than for the students themselves. There are many sections of this book to pull out and assign, or to read together in class, to help students gain an understanding of college-level research. But this is not a book I'd ever assign to my students in total. The suggestions for in-class and homework assignments are all high quality pedagogy. But students shouldn't read about their own assignments--they should just do them. Departments can give this book to first-year professors to help them create class periods where they teach their students how to write papers. That would be an excellent use for this text. But as a book for students themselves, I cannot recommend it.

Reviewed by Margaret Wood, Instructor, Klamath Community College on 8/21/16

The book thoroughly covers the material that first-year college research writers need to know including an introduction to basic academic research concepts, searches and source evaluation from library and web resources, a thorough discussion of... read more

The book thoroughly covers the material that first-year college research writers need to know including an introduction to basic academic research concepts, searches and source evaluation from library and web resources, a thorough discussion of summary, paraphrase and direct quotation, collaboration and peer review, topic selection, hypothesis and thesis development, annotated bibliography, text analysis and evaluation, engaging seriously with opposing viewpoints, working with evidence and attributes of evidence, the components of a traditional research essay, alternative forms of presentation (web-based project), and finally MLA and APA documentation. There are also hyperlinks to help readers move to relevant information in other chapters.

While concepts like ethos, logos, and pathos are mentioned in passing, they are not deeply developed. Other topics I generally teach alongside research which are not covered include strategies for defining terms, inductive and deductive logic, and logical fallacies.

I did not identify any inaccuracies or biases. There are areas where focus may be a bit different. For example, the model my institution uses for annotated bibliographies uses the rhetorical precis as a summary model, and also encourages a brief evaluative analysis. On the other hand, the emphasis given to the antithesis is new to me, and looks like a very good idea. I did identify a couple of grammatical issues -- two cases of "effect" instead of "affect", and one pronoun agreement problem.

Good writing principles don't tend to change that much. The discussion of the Web-based research project is very timely.

The book is written in a conversational style which should be easy for students to understand. All technical terms are clearly explained. There are also aids for comprehension and review including: a useful bulleted list at the beginning of each chapter outlines material covered in that chapter; highlighted boxes which provide guidance for class discussion on the topic; sample assignments; easy-to-read checklists of key points.

The text is entirely consistent. Hyperlinks help to connect key points to other chapters.

The material is subdivided into clear and appropriate chapters; moreover, the chapters provide clear subheadings. However, I did identify one instance where subheadings indicated material that is not present in chapter four: Three Ideas for Collaborative Projects * Research Idea Groups * Research Writing Partners * Collaborative Research Writing Projects.

Also, as previously mentioned, some material that I would like to include is not covered in this text.

I feel that chapter 3 should be placed later, at a point in the term where students have actually begun the writing process.

Images, though used infrequently, are blurry, and hyperlinks, at least as I was able to access them, did not appear to be active.

Mentioned above -- two "effect"/"affect" issues and one issue of pronoun agreement

I did not identify any culturally insensitive issues. The one essay topic used throughout, a thesis involving The Great Gatsby, I did not find particularly relevant, since my institution excludes literature from its research projects.

Solid and thorough advice on research writing. Quite heavy on text, but advice is useful and frequently innovative.

Reviewed by Laura Sanders, Instructor, Portland Community College on 8/21/16

The text offers a comprehensive discussion of all the elements of writing a research project. The author covers evaluating sources, using library research, incorporating research into essays, collaborative work, creating a thesis, as well as... read more

The text offers a comprehensive discussion of all the elements of writing a research project.

The author covers evaluating sources, using library research, incorporating research into essays, collaborative work, creating a thesis, as well as writing annotated bibliographies, close reading, opposition, alternative project formats, and citing sources.

Although there is no index or glossary, the text is organized in discrete chapters available on the site as HTML or PDF for easy navigation.

Although I found no inaccuracies, both the APA and MLA handbooks have been updated since the versions used in this text.

Most of the content will not be obsolete any time soon, but the citation chapter is not based on recent APA and MLA handbooks.

The section on alternative ways to present research (Chapter 11) could be updated to include YouTube, Prezi, and more recent technology.

The modular format would make it very easy to update.

The text is written at a level that is appropriate for the target audience, college students who need to build research and writing skills.

This text is internally consistent.

I consider the modules to be one of the main strengths of the text. The sections have useful subheadings.

It would be easy to select specific chapters as course readings.

The chapters follow an intuitive sequence of developing a paper from topic to research to draft.

This text is easy to navigate.

I found no grammar errors.

There are ample opportunities here to add cultural diversity to the sample topics and writing tasks.

I am thrilled to offer this text to my students instead of the incredibly expensive alternatives currently available.

I am particularly interested in using this book for online writing courses, so students who desire more thorough discussion of particular stages of writing a research project could build or refresh foundational skills in these areas.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Chapter One: Thinking Critically About Research
• Chapter Two: Understanding and Using the Library and the Internet for Research
• Chapter Three: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Chapter Four: How to Collaborate and Write With Others
• Chapter Five: The Working Thesis Exercise
• Chapter Six: The Annotated Bibliography Exercise
• Chapter Seven: The Critique Exercise
• Chapter Eight: The Antithesis Exercise
• Chapter Nine: The Categorization and Evaluation Exercise
• Chapter Ten: The Research Essay
• Chapter Eleven: Alternative Ways to Present Your Research
• Chapter Twelve: Citing Your Research Using MLA or APA Style

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The title of this book is The Process of Research Writing , and in the nutshell, that is what the book is about. A lot of times, instructors and students tend to separate “thinking,” “researching,” and “writing” into different categories that aren't necessarily very well connected. First you think, then you research, and then you write. The reality is though that the possibilities and process of research writing are more complicated and much richer than that. We think about what it is we want to research and write about, but at the same time, we learn what to think based on our research and our writing. The goal of this book is to guide you through this process of research writing by emphasizing a series of exercises that touch on different and related parts of the research process.

About the Contributors

Steven D. Krause  grew up in eastern Iowa, earned a BA in English at the University of Iowa, an MFA in Fiction Writing at Virginia Commonwealth University, and a PhD in Rhetoric and Writing at Bowling Green State University. He joined the faculty at Eastern Michigan University in 1998.

Contribute to this Page

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Getting started with your research paper outline

Levels of organization for a research paper outline

First level of organization, second level of organization, third level of organization, fourth level of organization, tips for writing a research paper outline, research paper outline template, my research paper outline is complete: what are the next steps, frequently asked questions about a research paper outline, related articles.

The outline is the skeleton of your research paper. Simply start by writing down your thesis and the main ideas you wish to present. This will likely change as your research progresses; therefore, do not worry about being too specific in the early stages of writing your outline.

A research paper outline typically contains between two and four layers of organization. The first two layers are the most generalized. Each layer thereafter will contain the research you complete and presents more and more detailed information.

The levels are typically represented by a combination of Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, uppercase letters, lowercase letters but may include other symbols. Refer to the guidelines provided by your institution, as formatting is not universal and differs between universities, fields, and subjects. If you are writing the outline for yourself, you may choose any combination you prefer.

This is the most generalized level of information. Begin by numbering the introduction, each idea you will present, and the conclusion. The main ideas contain the bulk of your research paper 's information. Depending on your research, it may be chapters of a book for a literature review , a series of dates for a historical research paper, or the methods and results of a scientific paper.

I. Introduction

II. Main idea

III. Main idea

IV. Main idea

V. Conclusion

The second level consists of topics which support the introduction, main ideas, and the conclusion. Each main idea should have at least two supporting topics listed in the outline.

If your main idea does not have enough support, you should consider presenting another main idea in its place. This is where you should stop outlining if this is your first draft. Continue your research before adding to the next levels of organization.

• A. Background information
• B. Hypothesis or thesis
• A. Supporting topic
• B. Supporting topic

The third level of organization contains supporting information for the topics previously listed. By now, you should have completed enough research to add support for your ideas.

The Introduction and Main Ideas may contain information you discovered about the author, timeframe, or contents of a book for a literature review; the historical events leading up to the research topic for a historical research paper, or an explanation of the problem a scientific research paper intends to address.

• 1. Relevant history
• 2. Relevant history
• 1. The hypothesis or thesis clearly stated
• 1. A brief description of supporting information
• 2. A brief description of supporting information

The fourth level of organization contains the most detailed information such as quotes, references, observations, or specific data needed to support the main idea. It is not typical to have further levels of organization because the information contained here is the most specific.

• a) Quotes or references to another piece of literature
• b) Quotes or references to another piece of literature

Tip: The key to creating a useful outline is to be consistent in your headings, organization, and levels of specificity.

• Be Consistent : ensure every heading has a similar tone. State the topic or write short sentences for each heading but avoid doing both.
• Organize Information : Higher levels of organization are more generally stated and each supporting level becomes more specific. The introduction and conclusion will never be lower than the first level of organization.
• Build Support : Each main idea should have two or more supporting topics. If your research does not have enough information to support the main idea you are presenting, you should, in general, complete additional research or revise the outline.

By now, you should know the basic requirements to create an outline for your paper. With a content framework in place, you can now start writing your paper . To help you start right away, you can use one of our templates and adjust it to suit your needs.

After completing your outline, you should:

• Title your research paper . This is an iterative process and may change when you delve deeper into the topic.
• Begin writing your research paper draft . Continue researching to further build your outline and provide more information to support your hypothesis or thesis.
• Format your draft appropriately . MLA 8 and APA 7 formats have differences between their bibliography page, in-text citations, line spacing, and title.
• Finalize your citations and bibliography . Use a reference manager like Paperpile to organize and cite your research.
• Write the abstract, if required . An abstract will briefly state the information contained within the paper, results of the research, and the conclusion.

An outline is used to organize written ideas about a topic into a logical order. Outlines help us organize major topics, subtopics, and supporting details. Researchers benefit greatly from outlines while writing by addressing which topic to cover in what order.

The most basic outline format consists of: an introduction, a minimum of three topic paragraphs, and a conclusion.

You should make an outline before starting to write your research paper. This will help you organize the main ideas and arguments you want to present in your topic.

• Consistency: ensure every heading has a similar tone. State the topic or write short sentences for each heading but avoid doing both.
• Organization : Higher levels of organization are more generally stated and each supporting level becomes more specific. The introduction and conclusion will never be lower than the first level of organization.
• Support : Each main idea should have two or more supporting topics. If your research does not have enough information to support the main idea you are presenting, you should, in general, complete additional research or revise the outline.

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

The research process, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Structuring the Research Paper

Formal research structure.

These are the primary purposes for formal research:

enter the discourse, or conversation, of other writers and scholars in your field

learn how others in your field use primary and secondary resources

find and understand raw data and information

For the formal academic research assignment, consider an organizational pattern typically used for primary academic research.  The pattern includes the following: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.

Usually, research papers flow from the general to the specific and back to the general in their organization. The introduction uses a general-to-specific movement in its organization, establishing the thesis and setting the context for the conversation. The methods and results sections are more detailed and specific, providing support for the generalizations made in the introduction. The discussion section moves toward an increasingly more general discussion of the subject, leading to the conclusions and recommendations, which then generalize the conversation again.

Sections of a Formal Structure

The introduction section.

Many students will find that writing a structured  introduction  gets them started and gives them the focus needed to significantly improve their entire paper. 

Introductions usually have three parts:

presentation of the problem statement, the topic, or the research inquiry

purpose and focus of your paper

summary or overview of the writer’s position or arguments

In the first part of the introduction—the presentation of the problem or the research inquiry—state the problem or express it so that the question is implied. Then, sketch the background on the problem and review the literature on it to give your readers a context that shows them how your research inquiry fits into the conversation currently ongoing in your subject area. 

In the second part of the introduction, state your purpose and focus. Here, you may even present your actual thesis. Sometimes your purpose statement can take the place of the thesis by letting your reader know your intentions. 

The third part of the introduction, the summary or overview of the paper, briefly leads readers through the discussion, forecasting the main ideas and giving readers a blueprint for the paper. 

The following example provides a blueprint for a well-organized introduction.

Example of an Introduction

Entrepreneurial Marketing: The Critical Difference

In an article in the Harvard Business Review, John A. Welsh and Jerry F. White remind us that “a small business is not a little big business.” An entrepreneur is not a multinational conglomerate but a profit-seeking individual. To survive, he must have a different outlook and must apply different principles to his endeavors than does the president of a large or even medium-sized corporation. Not only does the scale of small and big businesses differ, but small businesses also suffer from what the Harvard Business Review article calls “resource poverty.” This is a problem and opportunity that requires an entirely different approach to marketing. Where large ad budgets are not necessary or feasible, where expensive ad production squanders limited capital, where every marketing dollar must do the work of two dollars, if not five dollars or even ten, where a person’s company, capital, and material well-being are all on the line—that is, where guerrilla marketing can save the day and secure the bottom line (Levinson, 1984, p. 9).

By reviewing the introductions to research articles in the discipline in which you are writing your research paper, you can get an idea of what is considered the norm for that discipline. Study several of these before you begin your paper so that you know what may be expected. If you are unsure of the kind of introduction your paper needs, ask your professor for more information.  The introduction is normally written in present tense.

THE METHODS SECTION

The methods section of your research paper should describe in detail what methodology and special materials if any, you used to think through or perform your research. You should include any materials you used or designed for yourself, such as questionnaires or interview questions, to generate data or information for your research paper. You want to include any methodologies that are specific to your particular field of study, such as lab procedures for a lab experiment or data-gathering instruments for field research. The methods section is usually written in the past tense.

THE RESULTS SECTION

How you present the results of your research depends on what kind of research you did, your subject matter, and your readers’ expectations. 

Quantitative information —data that can be measured—can be presented systematically and economically in tables, charts, and graphs. Quantitative information includes quantities and comparisons of sets of data. 

Qualitative information , which includes brief descriptions, explanations, or instructions, can also be presented in prose tables. This kind of descriptive or explanatory information, however, is often presented in essay-like prose or even lists.

There are specific conventions for creating tables, charts, and graphs and organizing the information they contain. In general, you should use them only when you are sure they will enlighten your readers rather than confuse them. In the accompanying explanation and discussion, always refer to the graphic by number and explain specifically what you are referring to; you can also provide a caption for the graphic. The rule of thumb for presenting a graphic is first to introduce it by name, show it, and then interpret it. The results section is usually written in the past tense.

THE DISCUSSION SECTION

Your discussion section should generalize what you have learned from your research. One way to generalize is to explain the consequences or meaning of your results and then make your points that support and refer back to the statements you made in your introduction. Your discussion should be organized so that it relates directly to your thesis. You want to avoid introducing new ideas here or discussing tangential issues not directly related to the exploration and discovery of your thesis. The discussion section, along with the introduction, is usually written in the present tense.

THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

Your conclusion ties your research to your thesis, binding together all the main ideas in your thinking and writing. By presenting the logical outcome of your research and thinking, your conclusion answers your research inquiry for your reader. Your conclusions should relate directly to the ideas presented in your introduction section and should not present any new ideas.

You may be asked to present your recommendations separately in your research assignment. If so, you will want to add some elements to your conclusion section. For example, you may be asked to recommend a course of action, make a prediction, propose a solution to a problem, offer a judgment, or speculate on the implications and consequences of your ideas. The conclusions and recommendations section is usually written in the present tense.

Key Takeaways

• For the formal academic research assignment, consider an organizational pattern typically used for primary academic research. 
•  The pattern includes the following: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

• Privacy Policy

Home » Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide and Examples

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Chapter Summary

Chapter summary is a brief overview of the key points or events covered in a specific chapter of a book, academic paper, or other written work. It typically includes a concise description of the main ideas, arguments, or themes explored in the chapter, as well as any important supporting details or evidence .

Chapter summaries are often used as study aids, providing readers with a quick way to review and understand the content of a particular section of a longer work. They may also be included as part of a book’s table of contents or used as a promotional tool to entice potential readers.

How to Write Chapter Summary

Writing a chapter summary involves condensing the content of a chapter into a shorter, more concise form while still retaining its essential meaning. Here are some steps to help you write a chapter summary:

• Read the chapter carefully: Before summarizing a chapter, it is important to read it thoroughly to ensure that you understand the main ideas and points being made.
• Identify the main ideas: Identify the main ideas and arguments that the chapter is presenting. These may be explicit, or they may be implicit and require some interpretation on your part.
• Make notes: Take notes while reading to help you keep track of the main ideas and arguments. Write down key phrases, important quotes, and any examples or evidence that support the main points.
• Create an outline : Once you have identified the main ideas and arguments, create an outline for your summary. This will help you organize your thoughts and ensure that you include all the important points.
• Write the summary : Using your notes and outline, write a summary of the chapter. Start with a brief introduction that provides context for the chapter, then summarize the main ideas and arguments, and end with a conclusion that ties everything together.
• Edit and revise: After you have written the summary, review it carefully to ensure that it is accurate and concise. Make any necessary edits or revisions to improve the clarity and readability of the summary.
• Check for plagiarism : Finally, check your summary for plagiarism. Make sure that you have not copied any content directly from the chapter without proper citation.

Chapter Summary in Research Paper

In a Research Paper , a Chapter Summary is a brief description of the main points or findings covered in a particular chapter. The summary is typically included at the beginning or end of each chapter and serves as a guide for the reader to quickly understand the content of that chapter.

Here is an example of a chapter summary from a research paper on climate change:

Chapter 2: The Science of Climate Change

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the scientific consensus on climate change. We begin by discussing the greenhouse effect and the role of greenhouse gases in trapping heat in the atmosphere. We then review the evidence for climate change, including temperature records, sea level rise, and changes in the behavior of plants and animals. Finally, we examine the potential impacts of climate change on human society and the natural world. Overall, this chapter provides a foundation for understanding the scientific basis for climate change and the urgency of taking action to address this global challenge.

Chapter Summary in Thesis

In a Thesis , the Chapter Summary is a section that provides a brief overview of the main points covered in each chapter of the thesis. It is usually included at the beginning or end of each chapter and is intended to help the reader understand the key concepts and ideas presented in the chapter.

For example, in a thesis on computer science field, a chapter summary for a chapter on “Machine Learning Algorithms” might include:

Chapter 3: Machine Learning Algorithms

This chapter explores the use of machine learning algorithms in solving complex problems in computer science. We begin by discussing the basics of machine learning, including supervised and unsupervised learning, as well as different types of algorithms such as decision trees, neural networks, and support vector machines. We then present a case study on the application of machine learning algorithms in image recognition, demonstrating how these algorithms can improve accuracy and reduce error rates. Finally, we discuss the limitations and challenges of using machine learning algorithms, including issues of bias and overfitting. Overall, this chapter highlights the potential of machine learning algorithms to revolutionize the field of computer science and drive innovation in a wide range of industries.

Examples of Chapter Summary

Some Examples of Chapter Summary are as follows:

Research Title: “The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health: A Review of the Literature”

Chapter Summary:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the research problem, which is the impact of social media on mental health. It presents the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the methodology used to conduct the research.

Research Title : “The Effects of Exercise on Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis”

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter reviews the existing literature on the effects of exercise on cognitive functioning in older adults. It provides an overview of the theoretical framework and previous research findings related to the topic. The chapter concludes with a summary of the research gaps and limitations.

Research Title: “The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Effectiveness: A Case Study of Successful Business Leaders”

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter presents the research methodology used in the study, which is a case study approach. It describes the selection criteria for the participants and the data collection methods used. The chapter also provides a detailed explanation of the data analysis techniques used in the study.

Research Title: “Factors Influencing Employee Engagement in the Workplace: A Systematic Review”

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

This chapter presents the findings of the systematic review on the factors influencing employee engagement in the workplace. It provides a detailed analysis of the results, including the strengths and limitations of the studies reviewed. The chapter also discusses the implications of the findings for practice and future research.

Purpose of Chapter Summary

Some Purposes of the Chapter Summary are as follows:

• Comprehension : A chapter summary can help readers understand the main points of a chapter or book. It can help readers remember important details, keep track of the plot or argument, and connect the key ideas.
• Review : A chapter summary can be a useful tool for reviewing the material covered in a chapter. It can help readers review the content quickly and efficiently, and it can also serve as a reference for future study.
• Study aid: A chapter summary can be used as a study aid, especially for students who are preparing for exams or writing papers. It can help students organize their thoughts and focus on the most important information.
• Teaching tool: A chapter summary can be a useful teaching tool for educators. It can help teachers introduce key concepts and ideas, facilitate class discussion, and assess student understanding.
• Communication : A chapter summary can be used as a way to communicate the main ideas of a chapter or book to others. It can be used in presentations, reports, and other forms of communication to convey important information quickly and concisely.
• Time-saving : A chapter summary can save time for busy readers who may not have the time to read an entire book or chapter in detail. By providing a brief overview of the main points, a chapter summary can help readers determine whether a book or chapter is worth further reading.
• Accessibility : A chapter summary can make complex or technical information more accessible to a wider audience. It can help break down complex ideas into simpler terms and provide a clear and concise explanation of key concepts.
• Analysis : A chapter summary can be used as a starting point for analysis and discussion. It can help readers identify themes, motifs, and other literary devices used in the chapter or book, and it can serve as a jumping-off point for further analysis.
• Personal growth : A chapter summary can be used for personal growth and development. It can help readers gain new insights, learn new skills, and develop a deeper understanding of the world around them.

When to Write Chapter Summary

Chapter summaries are usually written after you have finished reading a chapter or a book. Writing a chapter summary can be useful for several reasons, including:

• Retention : Summarizing a chapter helps you to better retain the information you have read.
• Studying : Chapter summaries can be a useful study tool when preparing for exams or writing papers.
• Review : When you need to review a book or chapter quickly, a summary can help you to refresh your memory.
• Analysis : Summarizing a chapter can help you to identify the main themes and ideas of a book, which can be useful when analyzing it.

Advantages of Chapter Summary

Chapter summaries have several advantages:

• Helps with retention : Summarizing the key points of a chapter can help you remember important information better. By condensing the information, you can identify the main ideas and focus on the most relevant points.
• Saves time : Instead of re-reading the entire chapter when you need to review information, a summary can help you quickly refresh your memory. It can also save time during note-taking and studying.
• Provides an overview : A summary can give you a quick overview of the chapter’s content and help you identify the main themes and ideas. This can help you understand the broader context of the material.
• Helps with comprehension : Summarizing the content of a chapter can help you better understand the material. It can also help you identify any areas where you might need more clarification or further study.
• Useful for review: Chapter summaries can be a useful review tool before exams or when writing papers. They can help you organize your thoughts and review key concepts and ideas.
• Facilitates discussion: When working in a group, chapter summaries can help facilitate discussion and ensure that everyone is on the same page. It can also help to identify areas of confusion or disagreement.
• Supports active reading : Creating a summary requires active reading, which means that you are engaging with the material and thinking critically about it. This can help you develop stronger reading and critical thinking skills.
• Enables comparison : When reading multiple sources on a topic, creating summaries of each chapter can help you compare and contrast the information presented. This can help you identify differences and similarities in the arguments and ideas presented.
• Helpful for long texts: In longer books or texts, chapter summaries can be especially helpful. They can help you break down the material into manageable chunks and make it easier to digest.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Research Paper >

Parts of a Research Paper

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

This article is a part of the guide:

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

Browse Full Outline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference List

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

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

A good introduction generally consists of three distinct parts:

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

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

1) General Presentation

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

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

2) Purpose of the Paper

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

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

3) A Statement of Intent From the Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Jun 5, 2009). Parts of a Research Paper. Retrieved May 29, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/parts-of-a-research-paper

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

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

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

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

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Check out the official book.

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

(also available as ebook )

Save this course for later

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

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

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

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

13.1 Formatting a Research Paper

Learning objectives.

• Identify the major components of a research paper written using American Psychological Association (APA) style.
• Apply general APA style and formatting conventions in a research paper.

In this chapter, you will learn how to use APA style , the documentation and formatting style followed by the American Psychological Association, as well as MLA style , from the Modern Language Association. There are a few major formatting styles used in academic texts, including AMA, Chicago, and Turabian:

• AMA (American Medical Association) for medicine, health, and biological sciences
• APA (American Psychological Association) for education, psychology, and the social sciences
• Chicago—a common style used in everyday publications like magazines, newspapers, and books
• MLA (Modern Language Association) for English, literature, arts, and humanities
• Turabian—another common style designed for its universal application across all subjects and disciplines

While all the formatting and citation styles have their own use and applications, in this chapter we focus our attention on the two styles you are most likely to use in your academic studies: APA and MLA.

If you find that the rules of proper source documentation are difficult to keep straight, you are not alone. Writing a good research paper is, in and of itself, a major intellectual challenge. Having to follow detailed citation and formatting guidelines as well may seem like just one more task to add to an already-too-long list of requirements.

Following these guidelines, however, serves several important purposes. First, it signals to your readers that your paper should be taken seriously as a student’s contribution to a given academic or professional field; it is the literary equivalent of wearing a tailored suit to a job interview. Second, it shows that you respect other people’s work enough to give them proper credit for it. Finally, it helps your reader find additional materials if he or she wishes to learn more about your topic.

Furthermore, producing a letter-perfect APA-style paper need not be burdensome. Yes, it requires careful attention to detail. However, you can simplify the process if you keep these broad guidelines in mind:

• Work ahead whenever you can. Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” includes tips for keeping track of your sources early in the research process, which will save time later on.
• Get it right the first time. Apply APA guidelines as you write, so you will not have much to correct during the editing stage. Again, putting in a little extra time early on can save time later.
• Use the resources available to you. In addition to the guidelines provided in this chapter, you may wish to consult the APA website at http://www.apa.org or the Purdue University Online Writing lab at http://owl.english.purdue.edu , which regularly updates its online style guidelines.

General Formatting Guidelines

This chapter provides detailed guidelines for using the citation and formatting conventions developed by the American Psychological Association, or APA. Writers in disciplines as diverse as astrophysics, biology, psychology, and education follow APA style. The major components of a paper written in APA style are listed in the following box.

These are the major components of an APA-style paper:

Body, which includes the following:

• Headings and, if necessary, subheadings to organize the content
• In-text citations of research sources
• References page

All these components must be saved in one document, not as separate documents.

The title page of your paper includes the following information:

• Title of the paper
• Author’s name
• Name of the institution with which the author is affiliated
• Header at the top of the page with the paper title (in capital letters) and the page number (If the title is lengthy, you may use a shortened form of it in the header.)

List the first three elements in the order given in the previous list, centered about one third of the way down from the top of the page. Use the headers and footers tool of your word-processing program to add the header, with the title text at the left and the page number in the upper-right corner. Your title page should look like the following example.

The next page of your paper provides an abstract , or brief summary of your findings. An abstract does not need to be provided in every paper, but an abstract should be used in papers that include a hypothesis. A good abstract is concise—about one hundred fifty to two hundred fifty words—and is written in an objective, impersonal style. Your writing voice will not be as apparent here as in the body of your paper. When writing the abstract, take a just-the-facts approach, and summarize your research question and your findings in a few sentences.

In Chapter 12 “Writing a Research Paper” , you read a paper written by a student named Jorge, who researched the effectiveness of low-carbohydrate diets. Read Jorge’s abstract. Note how it sums up the major ideas in his paper without going into excessive detail.

Write an abstract summarizing your paper. Briefly introduce the topic, state your findings, and sum up what conclusions you can draw from your research. Use the word count feature of your word-processing program to make sure your abstract does not exceed one hundred fifty words.

Depending on your field of study, you may sometimes write research papers that present extensive primary research, such as your own experiment or survey. In your abstract, summarize your research question and your findings, and briefly indicate how your study relates to prior research in the field.

Margins, Pagination, and Headings

APA style requirements also address specific formatting concerns, such as margins, pagination, and heading styles, within the body of the paper. Review the following APA guidelines.

Use these general guidelines to format the paper:

• Set the top, bottom, and side margins of your paper at 1 inch.
• Use double-spaced text throughout your paper.
• Use a standard font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, in a legible size (10- to 12-point).
• Use continuous pagination throughout the paper, including the title page and the references section. Page numbers appear flush right within your header.
• Section headings and subsection headings within the body of your paper use different types of formatting depending on the level of information you are presenting. Additional details from Jorge’s paper are provided.

Begin formatting the final draft of your paper according to APA guidelines. You may work with an existing document or set up a new document if you choose. Include the following:

• Your title page
• The abstract you created in Note 13.8 “Exercise 1”
• Correct headers and page numbers for your title page and abstract

APA style uses section headings to organize information, making it easy for the reader to follow the writer’s train of thought and to know immediately what major topics are covered. Depending on the length and complexity of the paper, its major sections may also be divided into subsections, sub-subsections, and so on. These smaller sections, in turn, use different heading styles to indicate different levels of information. In essence, you are using headings to create a hierarchy of information.

The following heading styles used in APA formatting are listed in order of greatest to least importance:

• Section headings use centered, boldface type. Headings use title case, with important words in the heading capitalized.
• Subsection headings use left-aligned, boldface type. Headings use title case.
• The third level uses left-aligned, indented, boldface type. Headings use a capital letter only for the first word, and they end in a period.
• The fourth level follows the same style used for the previous level, but the headings are boldfaced and italicized.
• The fifth level follows the same style used for the previous level, but the headings are italicized and not boldfaced.

Visually, the hierarchy of information is organized as indicated in Table 13.1 “Section Headings” .

Table 13.1 Section Headings

A college research paper may not use all the heading levels shown in Table 13.1 “Section Headings” , but you are likely to encounter them in academic journal articles that use APA style. For a brief paper, you may find that level 1 headings suffice. Longer or more complex papers may need level 2 headings or other lower-level headings to organize information clearly. Use your outline to craft your major section headings and determine whether any subtopics are substantial enough to require additional levels of headings.

Working with the document you developed in Note 13.11 “Exercise 2” , begin setting up the heading structure of the final draft of your research paper according to APA guidelines. Include your title and at least two to three major section headings, and follow the formatting guidelines provided above. If your major sections should be broken into subsections, add those headings as well. Use your outline to help you.

Because Jorge used only level 1 headings, his Exercise 3 would look like the following:

Citation Guidelines

In-text citations.

Throughout the body of your paper, include a citation whenever you quote or paraphrase material from your research sources. As you learned in Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” , the purpose of citations is twofold: to give credit to others for their ideas and to allow your reader to follow up and learn more about the topic if desired. Your in-text citations provide basic information about your source; each source you cite will have a longer entry in the references section that provides more detailed information.

In-text citations must provide the name of the author or authors and the year the source was published. (When a given source does not list an individual author, you may provide the source title or the name of the organization that published the material instead.) When directly quoting a source, it is also required that you include the page number where the quote appears in your citation.

This information may be included within the sentence or in a parenthetical reference at the end of the sentence, as in these examples.

Epstein (2010) points out that “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive” (p. 137).

Here, the writer names the source author when introducing the quote and provides the publication date in parentheses after the author’s name. The page number appears in parentheses after the closing quotation marks and before the period that ends the sentence.

Addiction researchers caution that “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive” (Epstein, 2010, p. 137).

Here, the writer provides a parenthetical citation at the end of the sentence that includes the author’s name, the year of publication, and the page number separated by commas. Again, the parenthetical citation is placed after the closing quotation marks and before the period at the end of the sentence.

As noted in the book Junk Food, Junk Science (Epstein, 2010, p. 137), “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive.”

Here, the writer chose to mention the source title in the sentence (an optional piece of information to include) and followed the title with a parenthetical citation. Note that the parenthetical citation is placed before the comma that signals the end of the introductory phrase.

David Epstein’s book Junk Food, Junk Science (2010) pointed out that “junk food cannot be considered addictive in the same way that we think of psychoactive drugs as addictive” (p. 137).

Another variation is to introduce the author and the source title in your sentence and include the publication date and page number in parentheses within the sentence or at the end of the sentence. As long as you have included the essential information, you can choose the option that works best for that particular sentence and source.

Citing a book with a single author is usually a straightforward task. Of course, your research may require that you cite many other types of sources, such as books or articles with more than one author or sources with no individual author listed. You may also need to cite sources available in both print and online and nonprint sources, such as websites and personal interviews. Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” , Section 13.2 “Citing and Referencing Techniques” and Section 13.3 “Creating a References Section” provide extensive guidelines for citing a variety of source types.

Writing at Work

APA is just one of several different styles with its own guidelines for documentation, formatting, and language usage. Depending on your field of interest, you may be exposed to additional styles, such as the following:

• MLA style. Determined by the Modern Languages Association and used for papers in literature, languages, and other disciplines in the humanities.
• Chicago style. Outlined in the Chicago Manual of Style and sometimes used for papers in the humanities and the sciences; many professional organizations use this style for publications as well.
• Associated Press (AP) style. Used by professional journalists.

References List

The brief citations included in the body of your paper correspond to the more detailed citations provided at the end of the paper in the references section. In-text citations provide basic information—the author’s name, the publication date, and the page number if necessary—while the references section provides more extensive bibliographical information. Again, this information allows your reader to follow up on the sources you cited and do additional reading about the topic if desired.

The specific format of entries in the list of references varies slightly for different source types, but the entries generally include the following information:

• The name(s) of the author(s) or institution that wrote the source
• The year of publication and, where applicable, the exact date of publication
• The full title of the source
• For books, the city of publication
• For articles or essays, the name of the periodical or book in which the article or essay appears
• For magazine and journal articles, the volume number, issue number, and pages where the article appears
• For sources on the web, the URL where the source is located

The references page is double spaced and lists entries in alphabetical order by the author’s last name. If an entry continues for more than one line, the second line and each subsequent line are indented five spaces. Review the following example. ( Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” , Section 13.3 “Creating a References Section” provides extensive guidelines for formatting reference entries for different types of sources.)

In APA style, book and article titles are formatted in sentence case, not title case. Sentence case means that only the first word is capitalized, along with any proper nouns.

Key Takeaways

• Following proper citation and formatting guidelines helps writers ensure that their work will be taken seriously, give proper credit to other authors for their work, and provide valuable information to readers.
• Working ahead and taking care to cite sources correctly the first time are ways writers can save time during the editing stage of writing a research paper.
• APA papers usually include an abstract that concisely summarizes the paper.
• APA papers use a specific headings structure to provide a clear hierarchy of information.
• In APA papers, in-text citations usually include the name(s) of the author(s) and the year of publication.
• In-text citations correspond to entries in the references section, which provide detailed bibliographical information about a source.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Writing each section of a paper

• First Online: 24 May 2024

Cite this chapter

• Adrian Wallwork 3  

Part of the book series: English for Academic Research ((EAR))

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

English for Academics, Pisa, Italy

Adrian Wallwork

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Wallwork, A. (2024). Writing each section of a paper. In: English for Academic Research: Writing Exercises. English for Academic Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53174-3_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53174-3_10

Published : 24 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-53173-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-53174-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Craft Your Ideal Thesis Research Topic

Table of contents

Catherine Miller

Writing your undergraduate thesis is probably one of the most interesting parts of studying, especially because you get to choose your area of study. But as both a student and a teacher who’s helped countless students develop their research topics, I know this freedom can be just as intimidating as it is liberating.

Fortunately, there’a a step-by-step process you can follow that will help make the whole process a lot easier. In this article, I’ll show you how to choose a unique, specific thesis topic that’s true to your passions and interests, while making a contribution to your field.

Choose a topic that you’re interested in

First things first: double-check with your teachers or supervisor if there are any constraints on your research topic. Once your parameters are clear, it’s time to identify what lights you up — after all, you’re going to be spending a lot of time thinking about it.

Within your field of study, you probably already have some topics that have grabbed your attention more than others. This can be a great place to start. Additionally, consider using the rest of your academic and extra-curricular interests as a source of ideas. At this stage, you only need a broad topic before you narrow it down to a specific question. 

If you’re feeling stuck, here are some things to try:

• Look back through old course notes to remind yourself of topics you previously covered. Do any of these inspire you?
• Talk to potential supervisors about your ideas, as they can point you toward areas you might not have considered.
• Think about the things you enjoy in everyday life — whether that’s cycling, cinema, cooking, or fashion — then consider if there are any overlaps with your field of study.
• Imagine you have been asked to give a presentation or record a podcast in the next three days. What topics would you feel confident discussing?
• Watch a selection of existing lectures or explainer videos, or listen to podcasts by experts in your field. Note which topics you feel curious to explore further.
• Discuss your field of study with teachers friends and family, some with existing knowledge and some without. Which aspects do you enjoy talking about? 

By doing all this, you might uncover some unusual and exciting avenues for research. For example, when writing my Master’s dissertation, I decided to combine my field of study (English teaching methodology) with one of my passions outside work (creative writing). In my undergraduate course, a friend drew on her lived experience of disability to look into the literary portrayal of disability in the ancient world. 

Do your research

Once you’ve chosen your topic of interest, it’s time to dive into research. This is a really important part of this early process because it allows you to:

• See what other people have written about the topic — you don’t want to cover the same old ground as everyone else.
• Gain perspective on the big questions surrounding the topic. 
• Go deeper into the parts that interest you to help you decide where to focus.
• Start building your bibliography and a bank of interesting quotations. 

A great way to start is to visit your library for an introductory book. For example, the “A Very Short Introduction” series from the Oxford University Press provides overviews of a range of themes. Similar types of overviews may have the title “ A Companion to [Subject]” or “[Subject] A Student Companion”. Ask your librarian or teacher if you’re not sure where to begin. 

Your introductory volume can spark ideas for further research, and the bibliography can give you some pointers about where to go next. You can also use keywords to research online via academic sites like JStor or Google Scholar. Check which subscriptions are available via your institution.

At this stage, you may not wish to read every single paper you come across in full — this could take a very long time and not everything will be relevant. Summarizing software like Wordtune could be very useful here.

Just upload a PDF or link to an online article using Wordtune, and it will produce a summary of the whole paper with a list of key points. This helps you to quickly sift through papers to grasp their central ideas and identify which ones to read in full. 

Get Wordtune for free > Get Wordtune for free >

You can also use Wordtune for semantic search. In this case, the tool focuses its summary around your chosen search term, making it even easier to get what you need from the paper.

As you go, make sure you keep organized notes of what you’ve read, including the author and publication information and the page number of any citations you want to use. 

Some people are happy to do this process with pen and paper, but if you prefer a digital method, there are several software options, including Zotero , EndNote , and Mendeley . Your institution may have an existing subscription so check before you sign up.

Narrowing down your thesis research topic

Now you’ve read around the topic, it’s time to narrow down your ideas so you can craft your final question. For example, when it came to my undergraduate thesis, I knew I wanted to write about Ancient Greek religion and I was interested in the topic of goddesses. So, I:

• Did some wide reading around the topic of goddesses
• Learned that the goddess Hera was not as well researched as others and that there were some fascinating aspects I wanted to explore
• Decided (with my supervisor’s support) to focus on her temples in the Argive region of Greece

As part of this process, it can be helpful to consider the “5 Ws”: why, what, who, when, and where, as you move from the bigger picture to something more precise. 

Why did you choose this research topic?

Come back to the reasons you originally chose your theme. What grabbed you? Why is this topic important to you — or to the wider world? In my example, I knew I wanted to write about goddesses because, as a woman, I was interested in how a society in which female lives were often highly controlled dealt with having powerful female deities. My research highlighted Hera as one of the most powerful goddesses, tying into my key interest.

What are some of the big questions about your topic?

During your research, you’ll probably run into the same themes time and time again. Some of the questions that arise may not have been answered yet or might benefit from a fresh look. 

Equally, there may be questions that haven’t yet been asked, especially if you are approaching the topic from a modern perspective or combining research that hasn’t been considered before. This might include taking a post-colonial, feminist, or queer approach to older texts or bringing in research using new scientific methods.

In my example, I knew there were still controversies about why so many temples to the goddess Hera were built in a certain region, and was keen to explore these further.

Who is the research topic relevant to?

Considering the “who” might help you open up new avenues. Is there a particular audience you want to reach? What might they be interested in? Is this a new audience for this field? Are there people out there who might be affected by the outcome of this research — for example, people with a particular medical condition — who might be able to use your conclusions?

Which period will you focus on?

Depending on the nature of your field, you might be able to choose a timeframe, which can help narrow the topic down. For example, you might focus on historical events that took place over a handful of years, look at the impact of a work of literature at a certain point after its publication, or review scientific progress over the last five years. 

With my thesis, I decided to focus on the time when the temples were built rather than considering the hundreds of years for which they have existed, which would have taken me far too long.

Where does your topic relate to?

Place can be another means of narrowing down the topic. For example, consider the impact of your topic on a particular neighborhood, city, or country, rather than trying to process a global question. 

In my example, I chose to focus my research on one area of Greece, where there were lots of temples to Hera. This meant skipping other important locations, but including these would have made the thesis too wide-ranging.

Create an outline and get feedback

Once you have an idea of what you are going to write about, create an outline or summary and get feedback from your teacher(s). It’s okay if you don’t know exactly how you’re going to answer your thesis question yet, but based on your research you should have a rough plan of the key points you want to cover. So, for me, the outline was as follows:

• Context: who was the goddess Hera?
• Overview of her sanctuaries in the Argive region
• Their initial development 
• Political and cultural influences
• The importance of the mythical past

In the final thesis, I took a strong view on why the goddess was so important in this region, but it took more research, writing, and discussion with my supervisor to pin down my argument.

To choose a thesis research topic, find something you’re passionate about, research widely to get the big picture, and then move to a more focused view. Bringing a fresh perspective to a popular theme, finding an underserved audience who could benefit from your research, or answering a controversial question can make your thesis stand out from the crowd.

For tips on how to start writing your thesis, don’t miss our advice on writing a great research abstract and a stellar literature review . And don’t forget that Wordtune can also support you with proofreading, making it even easier to submit a polished thesis.

How do you come up with a research topic for a thesis?

To help you find a thesis topic, speak to your professor, look through your old course notes, think about what you already enjoy in everyday life, talk about your field of study with friends and family, and research podcasts and videos to find a topic that is interesting for you. It’s a good idea to refine your topic so that it’s not too general or broad.  

Do you choose your own thesis topic?

Yes, you usually choose your own thesis topic. You can get help from your professor(s), friends, and family to figure out which research topic is interesting to you. 

Share This Article:

How to Craft an Engaging Elevator Pitch that Gets Results

Eight Steps to Craft an Irresistible LinkedIn Profile

7 Common Errors in Writing + How to Fix Them (With Examples)

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: generalizable and scalable multistage biomedical concept normalization leveraging large language models.

Abstract: Background: Biomedical entity normalization is critical to biomedical research because the richness of free-text clinical data, such as progress notes, can often be fully leveraged only after translating words and phrases into structured and coded representations suitable for analysis. Large Language Models (LLMs), in turn, have shown great potential and high performance in a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, but their application for normalization remains understudied. Methods: We applied both proprietary and open-source LLMs in combination with several rule-based normalization systems commonly used in biomedical research. We used a two-step LLM integration approach, (1) using an LLM to generate alternative phrasings of a source utterance, and (2) to prune candidate UMLS concepts, using a variety of prompting methods. We measure results by $F_{\beta}$, where we favor recall over precision, and F1. Results: We evaluated a total of 5,523 concept terms and text contexts from a publicly available dataset of human-annotated biomedical abstracts. Incorporating GPT-3.5-turbo increased overall $F_{\beta}$ and F1 in normalization systems +9.5 and +7.3 (MetaMapLite), +13.9 and +10.9 (QuickUMLS), and +10.5 and +10.3 (BM25), while the open-source Vicuna model achieved +10.8 and +12.2 (MetaMapLite), +14.7 and +15 (QuickUMLS), and +15.6 and +18.7 (BM25). Conclusions: Existing general-purpose LLMs, both propriety and open-source, can be leveraged at scale to greatly improve normalization performance using existing tools, with no fine-tuning.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

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

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 25 May 2024

Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures

• Julia M. Wittmayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4738-6276 1 , 2 ,
• Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang 3 ,
• Kristina Bogner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1871-9828 4 ,
• Evan Boyle 5 ,
• Katharina Hölscher 6 ,
• Timo von Wirth 2 , 7 ,
• Tessa Boumans 2 ,
• Jilde Garst 8 ,
• Yogi Hale Hendlin 9 ,
• Mariangela Lavanga   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-9509 10 ,
• Derk Loorbach 1 ,
• Neha Mungekar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4663-0716 1 , 2 ,
• Mapula Tshangela 11 ,
• Pieter Vandekerckhove 12 &
• Ana Vasques 13  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  677 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers’ practical knowledge ‘in situ’. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around ‘how to’ as well as ‘what is the right thing to do’. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction.

There is a growing recognition that current research has failed to adequately address persistent societal challenges, which are complex, uncertain, and evaluative in nature (Ferraro et al., 2015 ; Loorbach et al., 2017 ; Saltelli et al., 2016 ). Along with this recognition come calls for science to help address these increasingly urgent and complex challenges faced at a global and local level, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, or social inequalities (Future Earth, 2014 ; Parks et al., 2019 ; WBGU, 2011 ). This call is echoed from within academia (Bradbury et al., 2019 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; Norström et al., 2020 ) and has also translated into corresponding research funding (Arnott et al., 2020 ; Gerber et al., 2020 ; Vermeer et al., 2020 ). The fundamental premise is that addressing complex societal challenges requires more than disciplinary knowledge alone and extends beyond the confines of academia (Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). That is, addressing them necessitates interactive knowledge co-production and social learning with societal actors to produce actionable and contextually embedded knowledge for societal transformations (Chambers et al., 2021 ; Hessels et al., 2009 ; Schäpke et al., 2018 ). This trend has prompted a (re)surge of socially engaged approaches to research, including transdisciplinary research, phronetic social sciences, participatory research, action- and impact-oriented research, and transformative research. These approaches involve collaboration between academics and various societal stakeholders, such as policymakers, communities, enterprises, and civil society organisations.

However, often, such socially engaged research approaches are at odds with the institutional traditions designed for monodisciplinary knowledge production. Transformative research, for instance, does not claim an objective observer position; instead, it explicitly embraces a normative orientation. Its goal, as many have argued, is to facilitate transformative societal change towards justice and sustainability by recognising and addressing the deep and persistent socio-ecological challenges inherent in our current society (Mertens, 2007 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). This motive to transform existing systems through collaborative research, in our view, obliges researchers to be more critical and vigilant in their decisions (Fazey et al., 2018 ). As we will present later in this paper, many of these decisions constitute ethical dilemmas, such as who decides what ‘good’ research is, whose knowledge to prioritise, or who should engage and under which circumstances. These ethical dilemmas are only poorly addressed by the ethical review processes in place at most universities, which remain dominated by linear and positivist framings of knowledge production and research design (Wood and Kahts-Kramer, 2023 ). Consequently, transformative researchers are often left struggling to choose “ between doing good (being ethically responsive to the people being researched) and doing good research (maintaining pre-approved protocols) ” (Macleod et al., 2018 , p. 10). The translation of the values and principles of transformative research into formal and informal ethical guidelines is only starting (Caniglia et al., 2023 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; West and Schill, 2022 ).

Confronting these ethical dilemmas calls for greater reflexivity and dialogue with ourselves, among researchers, between researchers and their collaborators (including funders and professionals), and between researchers and the institutions within which they operate (Finlay, 2002 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Attesting to this call, the authors of this paper engaged in a ‘collaborative autoethnography’ (Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara & Fukao, 2022 ; Phillips et al., 2022 ) to explore the following research question: Which ethical dilemmas do researchers face in research collaborations that seek to catalyse transformations? And how do they navigate these in their collaborative practice? Thus, as an interdisciplinary group of researchers affiliated with academic research institutes, we shared, compared, and discussed our experiences concerning ethical dilemmas in our transformative research endeavours. In these discussions, we considered our interactions, engagements, and relationships with collaborators along with how institutional rules and norms influence or constrain our practices and relations.

This paper begins with an overview of transformative research and the challenges that arise when working collaboratively. It also testifies to the formal and informal attempts to support researchers in navigating those challenges (“Ethics in transformative research”). From there, we develop the argument that formal or informal guidelines are most meaningful when they have become a part of the practical wisdom of researchers. When they are, they support researchers in leaning into the uncertainty of what constitutes morally good behaviour and in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’. Inspired by Mertens ( 2017 ), we relate our own dilemmas to the three philosophical commitments that comprise a research paradigm: axiology, ontology, and epistemology (“Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography”, also for an elaboration of the terms). We share concrete dilemmas while embedding and relating them to a broader body of knowledge around similar dilemmas and questions (“Collaboration in transformative research practice”). We close the paper by pointing to the importance of bottom-up ethics and the need to embed those into revalued and redesigned ethical standards, processes, and assessments that can provide external guidance and accountability (“Concluding thoughts”).

Ethics in transformative research

In this section, we first introduce transformative research (TR) in terms of its underlying values and its ontological and epistemological premises (Mertens, 2007 , 2017 ) (“Introducing transformative research”). We then connect it to its institutional context, where ethical standards and procedures fit the linear production of knowledge, leading to tensions with TR practices (“Institutional context: Formal ethical standards and processes”). Finally, we outline how the research community tries to address this misfit and the felt need for understanding what constitutes morally ‘right’ behaviour by providing peer guidance on the ethical conduct of TR (“Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research”).

Introducing transformative research

TR refers to a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions (Hölscher et al., 2021 ; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Mertens, 2021 ; Schneidewind et al., 2016 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). Transformative researchers thus start from the basic premise that “ all researchers are essentially interveners ” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 63). Consequently, they are explicit about the kind of normative orientation of their interventions to further a social justice and environmental sustainability agenda. There is no denying the fact that such research approaches can also be used with a different normative mindset and value orientation, which will have other ethical consequences.

TR builds on methodological and theoretical pluralism that knits together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Midgley, 2011 ). As such, it also comes as a diverse phenomenon, and where such diversity is “ not haphazard […] we must be cautious about developing all-embracing standards to differentiate the ‘good’ from the ‘bad ’” (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 , p. 783). Such an ontological stance involves letting go of the idea of absolute truth and the need to tightly control the research process and outcomes (van Breda and Swilling, 2019 ). Instead, TR encourages continuous societal learning to generate actionable knowledge and transformative action that manifests in real-world changes in behaviours, values, institutions, etc. (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Hölscher et al., 2021 ). In doing so, TR is often based upon pragmatist assumptions about the ways knowledge and action inform one another, generating contingent knowledge in a process of action and experimentation (Harney et al., 2016 ; Popa et al., 2015 ). The research process serves as a means to assess ideas in practical application, blending a critical realist stance on socially constructed reality with acknowledging subjectivism and the existence of multiple realities (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ).

TR also represents an epistemological shift from the notion of the distanced, presumably unbiased, and all-knowing researcher and recognises individuals as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents (Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Hurtado, 2022 ). Collaboration enables the elicitation of different kinds of knowledge, including scientific knowledge across disciplines as well as phronetic and tacit knowledge from practice. It aims at capturing the plurality of knowing and doing that is relevant to specific contexts and actors (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016 ; Nugroho et al., 2018 ; Pohl, 2008 ). This sort of mutual social learning supports joint sense-making and experimental processes. These then invite us to rethink existing situations, (re)define desired futures, and (re)position short-term action (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2019 ). The co-creation of knowledge and action can increase ownership, legitimacy, and accountability and can help facilitate trust-building among diverse societal groups (Hessels et al., 2009 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). The latter is an essential ingredient for tackling complex societal problems during times of discrediting science and the rise of populist, antidemocratic movements (Saltelli et al., 2016 ).

Institutional context: formal ethical standards and processes

The institutional environment is challenging for researchers engaging in TR for multiple reasons; one challenge is the formal ethical standards and processes. Current approaches to ethical assessment in social science emerged from several international conventions in the field of medical ethics (BMJ, 1996 ; General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 2014 ; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioural Research, 1979 ). Most formal research ethics reviews adopt the four principles of Beauchamp and Childress ( 2001 ), which include: (1) non-maleficence by attempting to not harm others; (2) respect for autonomy by attempting to provide information about the research that allows decisions to be taken; (3) beneficence by attempting to achieve useful outcomes outweighing the risks of participation; and (4) justice by attempting fairness in participation and distribution of benefits. These principles have found their way into formal ethical reviews, often practicing value-neutral and utilitarian ethics. This approach is debatable for TR approaches (Detardo-Bora, 2004 ) and seems more effective at protecting research institutions (foregrounding bureaucratically controllable compliance) than research participants (Christians, 2005 ). Indeed, many engaged in TR have raised concerns that neither these principles nor their formal translation account for the particularity, situatedness, epistemic responsibilities, and relationality that are key to the conduct and ethics of TR (Cockburn and Cundill, 2018 ; Lincoln, 2001 ; Parsell et al., 2014 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). In the following paragraphs, we highlight several tensions between the understanding of research, as it informs many ethical standards in place, and an understanding of TR.

First, a pre-defined versus an emerging research design. Due to its real-world orientation, TR needs to be able to deal flexibly with changing contexts and windows of opportunity that might arise (Hurtado, 2022 ). Due to the relationality of TR, it requires ongoing interaction and negotiation between researchers and their collaborators (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Bournot-Trites and Belanger, 2005 ; Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). One-off general consent at the start (e.g., through informed consent forms), as is common for ethical review processes, is thus at odds with the emergent design of TR and is also argued to be insufficient in maintaining participants’ autonomy (Smith, 2008 ). As an alternative, Locke et al. ( 2013 ) posit that informed consent should be seen as a collective, negotiated, continuous process, especially in collaborative action research.

Second, assumed neutrality versus dynamic aspects of researchers’ positionalities. Ethical review protocols are geared towards upholding the objective position of researchers as outsiders in the investigated context, ensuring that they will not influence this research context in any way. However, TR explicates its ambition to influence real-world problems through engagement, acknowledging that research needs to confront existing hegemonic orders and emancipate those involved through a democratic process (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ). Furthermore, researchers co-design, facilitate, and participate in the process of knowledge co-production, making them also participants and subjects of their own research (Janes, 2016 ). To enhance the validity and integrity of the research, Wood, and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 ), among others, suggest that transformative researchers explicitly state their positionality. This involves reflecting on their assumptions, values, and worldviews.

Third, the primacy of knowledge generation versus the importance of action. Ethical review protocols, given their historical roots in medical practice, assume that the act of falsifying, generating, or improving theories alone would benefit participants, collaborators, and the public at large. Yet, researchers engaged in TR take a step further, seeking to develop both scientific and actionable knowledge in a way that addresses persistent societal problems and stimulates social change (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Caniglia et al., 2021 ; Greenwood and Levin, 2007 ). As put by Wood and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 , p. 7), “ the ethical imperative of participatory research is to bring about positive change and generate theory from reflection on the purposeful action ”. This approach strengthens the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ).

Transformative researchers thus perceive a lack of utility and guidance from ethical standards and processes in place that have institutionalised a certain understanding of research and related sets of principles. Following Clouser and Gert ( 1990 ), one might question whether such institutionalisation of a moral consciousness is possible in the first place. They argue that so-called ‘principlism,’ “ the practice of using ‘principles’ to replace both moral theory and particular moral rules and ideals in dealing with the moral problems that arise in medical practice ” (Clouser and Gert, 1990 , p. 219), has reduced the much-needed debates on morality vis-à-vis research and results in inconsistent and ambiguous directives for morally ‘right’ action in practice. In response to the vacuum left by institutionalised ethics standards and processes and the perceived necessity of defining morally ‘right’ behaviour, the research community is turning inward to develop peer guidance on ethical conduct in TR. The subsequent section highlights several contributions to this endeavour.

Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research

Transformative researchers have started offering general principles or frameworks as informal heuristics for what constitutes ‘ethical’ TR. Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, argue that practical wisdom can serve as a moral compass in complex knowledge co-production contexts, and propose four central ‘wills’ for researchers to follow: committing to justice, embracing care, fostering humility, and developing courage. Under the framing of post-normal or Mode-2 science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994 ; Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ), Fazey et al. ( 2018 ) present ten ‘essentials’ of action-oriented research on transforming energy systems and climate change research Footnote 1 . One of these essentials highlights that, as researchers, we intervene, and that failing to acknowledge and engage with this reality opens the doors to sustaining unjust power relations or positioning science as apolitical. To address this, they echo Lacey et al.’s ( 2015 , p. 201) assertion that such acknowledgment means “ be[ing] transparent and accountable about the choices made about what science is undertaken, and how it is funded and communicated ”.

Looking beyond sustainability scholarship, other researchers have also developed practical actions or strategies for enhancing their ethical behaviours in the research collaboration. Taking the unique attributes of community-based participatory research, Kwan and Walsh ( 2018 , p. 382) emphasise a “ focus on equity rather than equality ” and on practicing a constructive or generative use of power “ rather than adopting a power neutral or averse position ”. Others provide guiding questions to think about the forms and quality of relationships between researchers and participants (Rowan, 2000 ) and to support the navigation of the relationship between action research and other participants (Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). Such questions should cover not only process-focused questions but also the risks and benefits of the intended outcomes, as well as questions around purpose, motivation, and directionalities (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ). Others also propose broader guidelines in which they pay attention to non-Western and non-human-centred virtue ethics, such as ‘Ubuntu’ (I am because we are) (Chilisa, 2020 ). In forwarding climate change as a product of colonisation, Gram-Hanssen et al. ( 2022 ) join Donald’s ( 2012 ) call for an ethical relationality and reiterate the need to ground all transformation efforts on a continuous process of embodying ‘right relations’ (see also Chilisa, 2020 ; Wilson, 2020 ).

Yet, as argued before, ethics in collaboration cannot be approached through developing principles and strategies alone. Not only might they not be at hand or on top of one’s mind when being immersed in a collaborative practice, which often requires a certain reaction on the spot. They also cannot or should not replace the quest for what morality means within that collaboration (cf. Clouser and Gert, 1990 ). Further questions have been prompted about the necessary skillsets for realising ethical principles in practice (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; West and Schill, 2022 ). Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, propose that researchers need skills such as dealing with plural values with agility and traversing principles and situations with discernment. Others focus on competency building among research participants (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2023 ). The subsequent section turns to the point of supporting researchers in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’ and in leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes—in concrete TR contexts that are plural and uncertain.

Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography

Transformative research as a situated practice.

The aforementioned institutionalised ethical standards and procedures, as well as the informal peer heuristics, are two vantage points for guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour for transformative researchers. These existing vantage points are either developed based on theoretical and philosophical framings or based on researchers’ actual experiences of doing TR. They do offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions in ethical dilemmas during research collaborations. However, it is not until such heuristics or principles have become part of the practical knowledge of researchers that they are useful for actual TR in situ.

Considering research more as a practice situates it as a social activity in a ‘real-world context’. In such a practice, researchers often make decisions on the spot. Moreover, due to the constraints posed by available time and resources, researchers often engage in what Greenwood and Levin ( 2007 , p. 130) term “ skilful improvisation ” or “ pragmatic concessions ” (Greenwood and Levin, 2007 , p. 85). This “ improvisational quality ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 70) of the research process does not mean it is not carried out systematically. Such systematicity is based on “ action repertoires ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 71) that researchers creatively use and remake (Malkki, 2007 ). This improvisation is thus neither spontaneous nor random; rather, it builds on and is based on the practical knowledge of researchers (formed through their experiences and their situatedness) guiding their behaviours in normatively complex situations. Using ‘organic design’ (Haapala et al., 2016 ), the researchers blend real-world settings into formal spaces, fostering bricolage and driving sustainable institutional evolution over time. Such practical knowledge includes “ both ‘know how’ knowledge (techne), […] and ethical and political-practical knowledge (phronesis)” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 61). Research can thus be considered a craft (Wittmayer, 2016 ): the skilful mastery of which develops over time through learning based on experience and reflection (Kolb, 1984 ).

Such experiential learning should go beyond reflecting on what lies in view to include seeing how attributes of the viewer shape what is being viewed (cf. Stirling, 2006 ). Engaging in TR includes being one’s own research instrument, which puts a researcher’s positionality, i.e., their social, cultural, and political locations, centre stage. It reminds us that researchers are “ located within networks of power and participate in the (re)configuration of power relations ” (Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 , p. 74). This positionality, the sum of what makes a person and how this informs their actions (Haraway, 1988 ; Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ; Marguin et al., 2021 ), is increasingly being acknowledged in academia. It has a long history in feminist theories, participatory action research, and the critical pedagogy of decolonisation. Positionality refers to the “ researcher’s self-understanding and social vision ” (Coghlan and Shani, 2005 , p. 539) as well as their motivation to ‘better society’ (Boyle et al., 2023 ; Kump et al., 2023 ) and how these affect how researchers interpret ethical guidelines, conduct research, interpret data, and present findings. Consequently, one’s positionality can make certain research choices seem unethical. Mertens ( 2021 , p. 2), for example, considers “ continuing to do research in a business-as-usual manner” unethical as it makes the researcher “ complicit in sustaining oppression ”.

Acknowledging one’s positionality and normative role is part of a broader reflexive practice of critically questioning, reflecting on, and being transparent about values, as well as taking responsibility and accountability for research processes and outcomes (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). Such a reflexive practice can support individual researchers to act ethically, but more so, to improve our collective ways of being and doing (i.e., an ethically informed research community) by constantly connecting what should be (i.e., the guidelines) and how it has been done (i.e., the practices) through critical reflexive practices. This improvement at the collective level includes a re-valuation and redesign of existing processes and guidelines for morally good research.

A collaborative autoethnography

Responding to this need for critical reflexivity, we engaged with our storied experience in navigating concrete and immediate ethical dilemmas that we have encountered when collaborating with others for TR in practice. We did so through collaborative autoethnography, a multivocal approach in which two or more researchers work together to share personal stories and interpret the pooled autoethnographic data (Chang et al., 2016 ; Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ). Collaborative autoethnography is appropriate for our inquiry as it broadens the gaze from the dilemmas of the self to locate them within categories of experience shared by many. Interrogating our personal narratives and understanding the shared experiences through multiple lenses not only facilitates a more rigorous, polyvocal analysis but also reveals possibilities for practical action or intervention (Lapadat, 2017 ). Collaborative auto-ethnography can thus be considered an approach that moves “ beyond the clichés and usual explanations to the point where the written memories come as close as they can make them to ‘an embodied sense of what happened’ ” (Davies and Gannon, 2006 , p. 3). It also supports developing researcher reflexivity (Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ).

Overall, we engaged in two types of collaborative activities over the course of a period of 18 months: writing and discussing. In hindsight, this period can be divided into three phases: starting up, exploring, and co-working. The first phase was kicked off by an online dialogue session with about 30 participants convened by the Design Impact Transition Platform of the Erasmus University Rotterdam in April 2022. The session was meant to explore and share experiences with a wide range of ethical dilemmas arising from TR collaboration in practice. Following this session, some participants continued deliberating on the questions and dilemmas raised in differing constellations and developed the idea of codifying and sharing our experiences and insights via a publication. In a second phase, we started writing down individual ethical dilemmas, both those we had discussed during the seminar and additional ones. These writings were brought together in an online shared file, where we continued our discussions. This was accompanied by meetings in differing constellations and of differing intensity for the researchers involved.

A third phase of intense co-work was framed by two broader online sessions. During a session in May 2023, we shared and discussed a first attempt at an analysis and sense-making of our individual dilemmas. During this session, we discerned the heuristic by Mertens et al. (2017) and discussed how it could be helpful in structuring our different experiences. Inspired by Mertens et al. (2017), we re-engaged with the three critical dimensions of any research paradigm to scrutinise our philosophical commitments to doing TR. A re-engagement with issues of axiology (the nature of ethics and values), ontology (the nature of reality), and epistemology (the nature of knowledge), as illustrated in Table 1 , allowed us to reconcile our ethical dilemmas and opened a space for a more nuanced understanding and bottom-up approach to the ethics of collaboration in TR. In moving forward, the heuristic also helped to guide the elicitation of additional dilemmas. This session kicked off a period of focused co-writing leading up to a second session in December 2023, where we discussed writing progress and specifically made sense of and related the ethical dilemmas to existing literature and insights.

Especially in this last phase, as we interacted dialogically to analyse and interpret the collection of storied experiences of ethical dilemmas, our thinking about the ethics of collaboration has evolved. It went beyond considering the inadequacy of institutional rules and how we navigated those, towards acknowledging their interplay with individual positionality and a researcher’s situated practice. Closer attention to the contexts within which the ethical dilemmas have arisen has led us to return to our philosophical commitments as transformative researchers and reflect on our assumptions about collaboration and research from a transformative standpoint.

The author team thus comprises a high proportion of those participating in the initial session, as well as others who joined the ensuing collective interpretation and analysis resulting in this paper. An important characteristic of the authors is that we are all affiliated with academic research institutions and that all but one of these institutions are based in high-income countries. It is in this context that we have shared our experiences, which is also limited by it. As such, this paper will mainly speak to other researchers affiliated with academic institutions in comparable settings. Acknowledging these limitations, we are from different (inter)disciplinary backgrounds Footnote 2 , nationalities, and work in different national settings and urban and rural locations. This diversity of contexts impacts the constellation of ethical dilemmas that we were faced with. We thus synthesise lessons from disparate yet still limited contexts, whilst remaining cognisant of the ungeneralisable nature of such a study.

Collaboration in transformative research practice

At the heart of our collaborative autoethnographic experience was the sharing and sensemaking of ethical dilemmas. In this section, we share those dilemmas (see Tables 2 – 4 ) clustered along the three philosophical commitments that served to deepen the analysis and interpretation of our storied experience. We embed our dilemmas with the broader body of knowledge around similar issues to discuss ways forward for practical knowledge around ‘what is good’ TR practice and ‘how to’ navigate ethical dilemmas.

Axiological dimension

Axiology is the study of value, which concerns what is considered ‘good’, what is valued, and most importantly, what ‘ought to be’. The axiological standpoint of TR is to address persistent societal problems and to contribute to transitions towards more just and sustainable societies. The commitment to knowledge development and transformative actions is also shaped by different personal judgements, disciplinary traditions, and institutional contexts. Together, these raise ethical concerns around the shape and form of research collaborations, the research lines being pursued, and where and for whom the benefits of the research accrue. Table 2 provides the details of the ethical dilemmas (described as encounters) that we discuss in the following.

Taking up a transformative stance goes hand in hand with individual researchers holding different roles at the same time (Hoffmann et al., 2022 ; Horlings et al., 2020 ; Jhagroe, 2018 ; Schut et al., 2014 ). Often resulting from this, they also perceive a wide range of responsibilities towards diverse groups (stakeholders, peers, the academic community, etc.). This is why transformative researchers face questions of who is responsible for what and whom in front of whom, and these questions influence and are influenced by what they consider the ‘right’ thing to do in relation to others in a collaborative setting. As a result, their axiological position is constructed intersubjectively in and through interactions unfolding in the communities of important others. It is thus relational and may differ depending on ‘the other’ in the research collaboration (Arrona & Larrea, 2018 ; Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ). Encounter 1 illustrates this through a constellation of the research collaboration that holds the potential to become a conflict of interest.

Such conflicts of interest can also occur in the very choice of which ‘community’ is being considered as the main beneficiary of the collaboration. The emphasis on action in TR, especially with regards to the principles of beneficence and justice that we mentioned in “Ethics in transformative research”, can increase this dilemma. Researchers are to continuously evaluate their (perceived) obligations. This includes, for example, obligations towards the scientific community (contributions to the academic discourse via publications) vs. obligations towards stakeholders (being a provider of free practical advice or consultant) vs. scientific requirements (academic rigour and independence) vs. stakeholder requests (answering practical questions). Researchers have to position themselves in this contested field of what ‘good research’ and ‘useful outcomes’ mean and sometimes question or challenge their peers or the academic system at large (see also Kump et al., 2023 ). This is the very question raised by Encounter 2 , where researchers are forced to decide which stakeholders’ values and needs should be prioritised in transforming clinical practice and improving the lives of patients.

Moreover, a similar prioritisation between the interests of different groups needs to be made between whether to create knowledge according to traditional scientific standards of systematicity and rigour or supporting collaborators in developing usable knowledge. This is surely a dilemma that arises from being embedded in an institutional context that judges according to different standards, but it also arises from the double commitment of TR to knowledge development and transformative action (Bartels et al., 2020 ). Huang et al. ( 2024 ) for example show how axiological assumptions serve as the base from which different notions of research excellence (e.g., scientific rigour, ‘impactful’ scholarship) are operationalised and supported institutionally. Encounter 3 reflects a similar dilemma as the lecturer juggles conflicting priorities that are inherent to the axiological concerns of TR. That is, can the goals of knowledge development in the traditional academic sense and transformative action be achieved simultaneously? The answer provided by Encounter 3 seems to suggest a redefinition of what ‘good’ scientific knowledge is, for immediate action to be possible.

Yet, perceived responsibilities—towards human and non-human actors, but also towards the own university, the institutional arrangements in which we partake, and what we understand as ethical behaviours—exist in a close, interdependent relationship with our inner ethical standards. Creed et al. ( 2022 , p. 358) capture this “ collection of sedimented evaluations of experiences, attachments, and commitments ” as an ‘embodied world of concern’. This can illustrate the complexity of how an individual researcher’s values, emotions, or sentiments tend to intertwine, and can sometimes clash, with the concerns of their communities and the social-political situation where they operate. Given that one’s embodied world of concern is not fixed but characterised by emerging pluralism, as Encounter 4 illustrates, the consequence of an ethical decision tends to fall more heavily on those with less axiological privilege, such as early career researchers or those located in regions where the opportunity for scientific publishing is limited (Kruijf et al., 2022 ).

As transformative researchers seek systemic change, their values cannot help but influence their research collaboration, including the choice of whom they work with and which methods to use. However, the intention of strengthening the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs through TR collaborations risks being co-opted by the interests of those funding research activities (Bauwens et al., 2023 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ). As illustrated in Encounter 5 , this might cause dilemmas when being approached by stakeholders (e.g., oil and gas companies) to do research, which may not sit well with the subjective judgements of the researcher or with an overall need for transformative change. Researchers can be caught in an odd position and left to wonder whether a compromise of values is worth the risks and end gain, depending on whether a positive contribution can still be achieved. Negotiating our axiological stances with collaborators thus allows researchers to be seen as social beings embedded in patterns of social interdependence, who are not only “ capable and can flourish ” but also “ vulnerable and susceptible to various kinds of loss or harm [and] can suffer ” (Sayer, 2011 , p. 1).

Ontological dimension

Ontology is the philosophical study of being, which concerns the nature of reality and what really exists. TR can start from diverse ontological stances, including critical realist, pragmatist, or subjectivist perspectives. This includes a strong acknowledgement that “ there are multiple versions of what is believed to be real ” (Mertens, 2017 , p. 21). Yet, such a pluralist stance remains a theoretical exercise up until the point that researchers ought to define what are ‘the things’ that need to be transformed and into what. In this situation, at least two debates arise: Do ‘the things’ exist based on a specific ontological commitment, such as the divide between measurable constructs and socially constructed understandings of risks and inequities. And is the existence of ‘the things’ universal or merely a construct of a specific time, space, or social group? As the researcher illustrated in Encounter 6 (see Table 3 for the detailed encounters), if maths anxiety and eco-anxiety are recognised as ‘real’ because of growing clinical research, why can’t the research team accept the construct of ‘science anxiety’ that their teacher collaborators have perceived in their classrooms? Collaboration thus remains especially challenging when researchers strive for academic rigour from an empiricist standpoint while having to cross paths or work with individuals from different ontological positions (Midgley, 2011 ).

Commitments to working collaboratively with members of ‘marginalised’ and ‘vulnerable’ communities add to this dilemma, as researchers are bound to encounter the ethical dilemmas of whose reality is privileged, whose reality can or should be legitimised and considered ‘true’ in a TR process (Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ). In Encounter 7 , for instance, research participants do not recognise themselves as ‘climate displaced persons’ or ‘climate migrants’ because they have a long history of migration for a plethora of reasons. Now, should researchers continue using this term with a view to gain political attention to the issues of climate change, or should they abstain from doing so? How does this relate to their commitment to transformative action, including shaping political agendas? The intention to target system-level change in TR (Burns, 2014 ; Kemmis, 2008 ) also means that researchers ought to interrogate the mechanisms that inflict certain perceived realities on the powerless in the name of good causes (Edelman, 2018 ; Feltham-King et al., 2018 ), the ways in which these narratives are deployed by powerful stakeholders (Thomas and Warner, 2019 ) and how these are translated into (research) action.

Moreover, research and action on ‘scientific’ problems can deflect attention from other problems that local communities most care about or lead to unexpected, even negative, implications for some stakeholders. With increasing pressure on the societal impact of research and funding tied to certain policy goals, the issues of labelling and appropriation might only perpetuate a deficit perspective on specific groups (Eriksen et al., 2021 ; Escobar, 2011 ; van Steenbergen, 2020 ). Encounter 8 highlights that, without caution, well-intended efforts risk perpetuating harm and injustice —upholding a certain deficit perspective of the community in question. Communities accustomed to ‘helicopter’ research, where academics ‘fly-in, fly-out’ to further their careers at the expense of the communities, may be reluctant to collaborate. This necessitates transparency, active listening, deliberative involvement, and trust building (Adame, 2021 ; Haelewaters et al., 2021 ). It also reminds us of the ‘seagull syndrome’,’ which attests to the frustration felt by community members towards outsider ‘experts’ making generalisations and false diagnoses based on what is usually a superficial or snapshot understanding of local community dynamics (Porter, 2016 ). In some incidents, transformative researchers may need to redesign collaboration processes in TR that centre on the realities of people in the study (Hickey et al., 2018 ).

Epistemological dimension

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and its primary concern is the relationship between the knower and what can be known. Transformative researchers usually work at the interface of disciplines, each with their own ideas on what constitutes ‘scientifically sound’ but also ‘socially robust’ or ‘actionable’ knowledge (Mach et al., 2020 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ). Many thus hold the epistemological assumption that knowledge is created through multiple ways of knowing, and the processes of knowledge generation need to recognise how power inequities may shape the normative definition of legitimate knowledge. This stance raises ethical concerns about whose knowledge systems and ways of knowing are included, privileged, and/or legitimised in TR practice. Moreover, it raises concerns about ways of ensuring a plurality of knowledge spaces (Savransky, 2017 ).

Using an epistemological lens to interrogate collaborative practice in TR can illuminate a wide range of ethical dilemmas associated with longstanding critiques of Western norms and ‘scientific superiority’ (Dotson, 2011 ; Dutta et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). It also brings to the fore the power dynamics inherent within collaborative processes of TR for sustainability (de Geus et al., 2023 ; Frantzeskaki and Rok, 2018 ; Kanemasu and Molnar, 2020 ; Kok et al., 2021 ; Strumińska-Kutra and Scholl, 2022 ). A particular ethical challenge is related to the fact that it is typically researchers from the Global North who design and lead research collaborations, even when these take place in the Global South. This immediately creates “ an inequality that is not conducive to effective co-production ” and requires “ dedicated commitment to identify and confront the embodied power relations [and] hegemonic knowledge systems among the participants in the process ” (Vincent, 2022 , p. 890). See Table 4 for details on the ethical dilemmas that we discuss in the following.

Concerns about epistemic justice (Ackerly et al., 2020 ; Harvey et al., 2022 ; Temper and Del Bene, 2016 ) and interpretation of voices (Komulainen, 2007 ) are largely rooted in the deficit narratives about the capacity of certain groups for producing knowledge or for being knowers. Encounter 9 shows how easily certain voices can be muted as not being considered to speak from a position of knowledge. Research processes can usefully be expanded to include disinterested or disengaged citizens (Boyle et al., 2022 ), or those opposing a project or initiative so as to lay bare the associated tensions of knowledge integration and co-production (Cockburn, 2022 ). Encounter 10 illustrates that such silencing also relates to the question of who holds legitimate knowledge. This research has three parties that may hold legitimate knowledge: the researcher, the corporation, and the local community. However, the extent to which the researchers’ knowledge is heard remains unclear since the corporation does not consider it in its actions. It also illustrates common insecurities about what one can attain using certain research methods. The reliance of political institutions and citizens on expert advice, particularly when dealing with acute crises (e.g., Covid-19 pandemic), also tends to exacerbate the depoliticisation of decisions (Rovelli, 2021 ).

Moreover, TR practice nearly inevitably results in privileging certain ways of knowing and knowledges. Researchers make space for shared action or dialogue around a certain issue, inviting certain groups but not others, and choosing certain methods and not others. Encounter 11 illustrates the issue of favouritism in research collaboration. It elaborates on how thoughtful facilitation can intervene to level the playing field and provide a way out of the dilemma going beyond the question of whose benefit it serves. This facilitation enables meaningful collaboration among all parties involved. Particularly in policy sectors dominated by political and economic considerations, which exhibit strong vested interests, there is a need to foster meaningful and safe participation (Nastar et al., 2018 ). Skilled facilitation is crucial for uniting marginalised groups, preparing them to deal with the intricacies of scientific jargon and technological hegemony (Djenontin and Meadow, 2018 ; Reed and Abernethy, 2018 ). The contextual dimensions of collaborators, their associated worldviews, and the social networks in which they are situated are important epistemological foundations. Yet, these are not static and can shift over time throughout collaborative partnerships.

As explicated in “Introducing transformative research”, TR represents an epistemological shift to recognise researchers as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents. This philosophical commitment can create dilemmas for ‘embedded researchers’ seeking to strengthen the science-policy interface. Encounter 12 illustrates how occupying a dual role — to dive into action and to publish scientifically — can be at odds. This encounter alludes to the fact that transformative researchers often navigate different roles, which come with different, at times conflicting, epistemological priorities and ways of knowing (e.g., roles as a change agent and a reflective scientist, the approach of ‘Two-Eyed Seeing’ by Indigenous scholars) (Bulten et al., 2021 ; Temper et al., 2019 ; Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014 ). Importantly, such roles change over time in a TR practice and over the course of a researcher’s career (McGowan et al., 2014 ; Pohl et al., 2017 ).

Involving diverse stakeholders in knowledge co-production also inevitably leads to ethical questions concerning how to integrate diverse knowledge systems, especially those using multi-method research designs or models to aid decision-making (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ). Models can be useful in providing scenarios, however, they are constructed by people based on certain assumptions. These assumptions serve as the fundamental lenses through which complex real-world systems are simplified, analysed, and interpreted within the model framework. Despite the well-intention of researchers, the practice of establishing a shared understanding and reaching consensus about key constructs in a model is often unattainable. As Encounter 13 illustrates, participatory model building requires the capacity and willingness of all involved to knit together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism.

We explored the dilemmas of researchers pertaining to knowing ‘how to’ act in a certain situation and considering ‘what is doing good’ in that situation. Transformative researchers (re)build their practical knowledge of what doing research means through cultivating a reflexive practice that puts experiences in context and allows to learn from them. From a meta-perspective, doing TR is a form of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984 ) and doing TR involves traversing an action research cycle: experiencing and observing one’s action research practice, abstracting from it, building knowledge, and experimenting with it again to cultivate what has been referred to as first person inquiry (Reason and Torbert, 2001 ).

Concluding thoughts

In this article, we set out to explore which ethical dilemmas researchers face in TR and how they navigate those in practice. We highlighted that researchers engaging in TR face a context of uncertainty and plurality around what counts as ethically acceptable collaboration. With TR emphasising collaboration, it becomes important to discern the notion of ‘right relations’ with others (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2022 ), to attend to the positionality of the researcher, and to reconfigure power relations. Importantly, with TR emphasising the need for structural and systematic changes, researchers need to be aware of how research itself is characterised by structural injustices.

Using a collaborative autoethnography, we shared ethical dilemmas to uncover the messiness of collaborative TR practice. We established how guidance from institutionalised reference systems (i.e., ethical review boards and procedures) currently falls short in recognising the particularities of TR. We described how the research community generates informal principles, or heuristics to address this gap. However, we also appreciated that in actual collaboration, researchers are often ‘put on the spot’ to react ‘ethically’ in situ, with limited time and space to withdraw and consult guidelines on ‘how to behave’. Such informal heuristics are thus but a start and a helpful direction for developing the practical knowledge of researchers on how to navigate a plural and uncertain context.

This practical knowledge is based on an awareness of the uncertainty around what constitutes morally good behaviour and builds through experience and a critical reflexive practice. Our aim is not to share another set of principles, but rather to highlight the situatedness of TR and the craftsmanship necessary to navigate it and, in doing so, build practical knowledge through experiential learning and insight discovery (Kolb, 1984 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Such a bottom-up approach to research ethics builds on the experiences of researchers engaging in TR as a situated practice vis-à-vis their personal motivations and normative ambitions and the institutional contexts they are embedded in. This approach nurtures the critical reflexivity of researchers about how they relate to ethical principles and how they translate this into their normative assumptions, practical hypotheses, and methodological strategy.

Next to continuous learning, this critical reflexivity on TR as craftmanship can enhance practical wisdom not only for the individual but also for the broader community of researchers. We envision such wisdom not as a set of closed-ended guidelines or principles, but rather as a growing collection of ethical questions enabling the TR community to continuously deepen the interrogation of their axiological, ontological, and epistemological commitments (see Table 5 ). Only through this ongoing process of reacting, reflecting, and questioning—or as referred to by Pearce et al. ( 2022 , p. 4) as “an insight discovery process”—can we collectively learn from the past to improve our future actions.

However, such a bottom-up approach to ethics can only form one part of the answer, set in times of an evolving research ethics landscape. Researchers engaging in transformative academic work cannot and should not be left alone. Additionally, researchers’ ethical judgements cannot be left to their goodwill and virtuous values alone. Therefore, another important part of the answer is the carving out of appropriate institutions that can provide external guidance and accountability. This will require nothing less than structural and cultural changes in established universities and research environments. Rather than having researchers decide between doing good and doing ‘good’ research, such environments should help to align those goals.

From this work, questions arise on how institutional environments can be reformed or transformed to be more conducive to the particularities of TR, and to help nurture critical reflexivity. We highlight the critical role that ethic review boards can play in starting to rethink their roles, structures, and underlying values. Practical ideas include employing mentors for transformative research ethics, having ethical review as a process rather than as a one-off at the start of the project, or continuously investing in moral education. Thus, we underscore the importance of individual reflexivity and learning. However, we would like to set this in the broader context of organisational learning, and even unlearning, among academic institutions to overhaul our academic systems in response to the urgent imperative of tackling socio-ecological challenges globally. In this transformative endeavour, careful consideration of how the ethics of research and collaboration shape academics’ socially engaged work is indispensable.

The full set of essentials is the following: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on ‘how to’ practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative, and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge.

Disciplines include amongst others anthropology, business administration, climate change adaptation, cultural economics, economics, economic geography, education, health sciences, human geography, international development studies, philosophy, political science, sociology, urban planning.

Ackerly BA, Friedman EJ, Menon K, Zalewski M (2020) Research ethics and epistemic oppression. Int. Feminist J Politics 22(3):309–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1771006

Article   Google Scholar  

Adame F (2021) Meaningful collaborations can end ‘helicopter research’. Nature d41586-021-01795–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1

Arnott JC, Neuenfeldt RJ, Lemos MC (2020) Co-producing science for sustainability: can funding change knowledge use? Glob Environ Change 60:101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979

Arrona A, Larrea M (2018) Soft resistance: balancing relationality and criticality to institutionalise action research for territorial development. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds.) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 134–152

Bartels KPR, Greenwood DJ, Wittmayer JM (2020) How action research can make deliberative policy analysis more transformative. Policy Stud 41(4):392–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1724927

Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) (2018) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York

Bauwens T, Reike D, Calisto-Friant M (2023) Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it. Environ Innov Soci Transit 48:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100749

Beauchamp T, Childress J (2001) Principles Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press

BMJ. (1996) The Nuremberg Code (1947). 313(7070), 1448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448

Bournot-Trites M, Belanger J (2005) Ethical dilemmas facing action researchers. J Educ Thought (JET)/Rev de La Pensée Éducative 39(2):197–215

Google Scholar  

Boyle E, Galvin M, Revez A, Deane A, Ó Gallachóir B, Mullally G (2022) Flexibility & structure: community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery. Energy Policy 167:113050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113050

Boyle E, McGookin C, O’Mahony C, Bolger P, Byrne E, Gallachóir BÓ, Mullally G (2023) Understanding how institutions may support the development of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainability research. Research for All, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.07.1.07

Bradbury H, Waddell S, O’Brien K, Apgar M, Teehankee B, Fazey I (2019) A call to action research for transformations: the times demand it. Action Res 17(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633

Bulten E, Hessels LK, Hordijk M, Segrave AJ (2021) Conflicting roles of researchers in sustainability transitions: balancing action and reflection. Sustain Sci 16(4):1269–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00938-7

Burns D (2014) Systemic action research: changing system dynamics to support sustainable change. Action Res 12(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750313513910

Caniglia G, Freeth R, Luederitz C, Leventon J, West SP, John B, Peukert D, Lang DJ, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B, Fazey I, Russo F, von Wirth T, Schlüter M, Vogel C (2023) Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain 6(5):493–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Caniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Martín-López B, Hondrila K, König A, von Wehrden H, Schäpke NA, Laubichler MD, Lang DJ (2021) A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Cassell C, Johnson P (2006) Action research: explaining the diversity. Hum Relat 59(6):783–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706067080

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengö M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ, Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Österblom H, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustainability 4(11):983–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Chang H, Ngunjiri F, Hernandez K (2016) Collaborative autoethnography (Vol. 8). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315432137/collaborative-autoethnography-kathy-ann-hernandez-heewon-chang-faith-ngunjiri

Chilisa B (2020) Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

Christians C (2005) Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Y Lincoln (ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 139–164

Clouser K, Gert B (1990) A critique of principlism. J Med Philos 152(2):219–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/15.2.219

Cockburn J (2022) Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism. Sustain Dev 30(2):358–374

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Cockburn J, Cundill G (2018) Ethics in transdisciplinary research: Reflections on the implications of ‘Science with Society’. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham, pp 81–97

Coghlan D, Shani ABR (2005) Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design. Syst Pract Action Res 18(6):533–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-9465-3

Creed WED, Hudson BA, Okhuysen GA, Smith-Crowe K (2022) A place in the world: vulnerability, well-Being, and the Ubiquitous evaluation that animates participation in institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 47(3):358–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0367

Davies B, Gannon S (2006) The practices of collective biography. In: Davies B, Gannon S (eds) Doing collective biography. Investigating the production of subjectivity, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 1–15

de Geus T, Avelino F, Strumińska-Kutra M, Pitzer M, Wittmayer JM, Hendrikx L, Joshi V, Schrandt N, Widdel L, Fraaije M, Iskandarova M, Hielscher S, Rogge K (2023) Making sense of power through transdisciplinary sustainability research: insights from a transformative power lab. Sustain Sci. 18(3):1311–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01294-4

Detardo-Bora K (2004) Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review boards. Action Res 2(3):237–253

Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61(6):885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Donald D (2012) Indigenous Métissage: a decolonizing research sensibility. Int J Qual Stud Educ 25(5):533–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.554449

Dotson K (2011) Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia 26(2):236–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x

Dutta U, Azad AK, Hussain SM (2022) Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: decolonial community‐based praxis from the global south. Am J Commun Psychol 69(1–2):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12545

Edelman NL (2018) Researching sexual healthcare for women with problematic drug use: returning to ethical principles in study processes. In: In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 47–62

Eriksen S, Schipper ELF, Scoville-Simonds M, Vincent K, Adam HN, Brooks N, Harding B, Khatri D, Lenaerts L, Liverman D, Mills-Novoa M, Mosberg M, Movik S, Muok B, Nightingale A, Ojha H, Sygna L, Taylor M, Vogel C, West JJ (2021) Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev 141:105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Escobar A (2011) Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G, Patterson J, Hultman J, van Mierlo B, Säwe F, Wiek A, Wittmayer J, Aldunce P, Woods M, Wyborn C (2018) Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026

Feltham-King T, Bomela Y, Macleod CI (2018) Contesting the nature of young pregnant and mothering women: critical healthcare nexus research, ethics committees, and healthcare institutions. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 63–79

Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qua Res 2:209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205

Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N (2016) Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ Sci Policy 62:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010

Frantzeskaki N, Rok A (2018) Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environ Innov Soc Transit 29(August):47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.001

Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol Econ 10(3):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2

Future Earth (2014) Future Earth 2025 Vision. International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris. Online at: https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/future-earth_10-year-vision_web.pdf

General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81(3):14–18

Gerber A, Forsberg E-M, Shelley-Egan C, Arias R, Daimer S, Dalton G, Cristóbal AB, Dreyer M, Griessler E, Lindner R, Revuelta G, Riccio A, Steinhaus N (2020) Joint declaration on mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J Responsible Innov 7(3):708–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1764837

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications, London

Gram-Hanssen I, Schafenacker N, Bentz J (2022) Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations. Sustain Sci 17(2):673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Greenwood DJ, Levin M (2007) Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Haapala J, Rautanen S-L, White P, Keskinen M, Varis O (2016) Facilitating bricolage through more organic institutional designs? The case of water users’ associations in rural Nepal. Int J Commons 10(2):1172. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.688

Haelewaters D, Hofmann TA, Romero-Olivares AL (2021) Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLOS Comput Biol 17(8):e1009277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14(3):575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Harney L, Mccurry J, Wills J (2016) Developing ‘ process pragmatism ’ to underpin engaged research in human geography. Prog Hum Geogr 40(3):316–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515623367

Harvey B, Huang Y-S, Araujo J, Vincent K, Sabiiti G (2022) Breaking vicious cycles? A systems perspective on Southern leadership in climate and development research programmes. Clim Dev 14(10):884–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2020614

Hessels LK, van Lente H, Smits R (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387–401. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442034

Hickey G, Richards T, Sheehy J (2018) Co-production from proposal to paper Three examples show how public participation in research can be extended at every step of the process to generate useful knowledge. Nature 562:29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06861-9

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye, D, Pohl, C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3

Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, Klein JT, O’Rourke M (2022) Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-022-01138-Z

Hoffmann S, Pohl C, Hering JG (2017) Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res Policy 46(3):678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Hirschnitz-garbers M, Olfert A, Schiller G, Brunnow B (2021) Transforming science and society? Methodological lessons from and for transformation research. Res Eval 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa034

Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leventon J, Lang DJ (2022) Making transdisciplinarity happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning. Environ Sci Policy 136:187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019

Horlings LG, Nieto-Romero M, Pisters S, Soini K (2020) Operationalising transformative sustainability science through place-based research: the role of researchers. Sustain Sci. 15(2):467–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00757-x

Huang YS, Harvey B, Vincent K (2024) Large-scale sustainability programming is reshaping research excellence: Insights from a meta-ethnographic study of 12 global initiatives Environ Sci Policy 155:103725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103725

Hurtado S (2022) The transformative paradigm. In: Pasque PA (ed) Advancing culturally responsive research and researchers: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, Routledge, London, pp 15–17

Jaeger-Erben M, Nagy E, Schäfer M, Süßbauer E, Zscheischler J (2018) Von der Programmatik zur Praxis: Plädoyer für eine Grounded Theory transformationsorientierter Forschung. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 27(1):117–121. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.5

Janes J (2016) Democratic encounters? Epistemic privilege, power, and community-based participatory action research. Action Res 14(1):72–87

Jhagroe S (2018) Transition scientivism: on activist gardening and co-producing transition knowledge ‘from below’. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) Action Research in Policy Analysis. Critical and Relational Appoaches to Sustainability Transitions, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 64–85

Kanemasu Y, Molnar G (2020) Representing’ the voices of Fijian women rugby players: Working with power differentials in transformative research. Int Rev Sociol Sport 55(4):399–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690218818991

Kemmis S (2008) Critical theory and participatory action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, London, pp 695–707

Kok KPW, Gjefsen MD, Regeer BJ, Broerse JEW (2021) Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustain Sci 16(6):1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kolb, D (1984) The Process of Experiential Learning. In: Experiential Learning. Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, pp 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4

Komulainen S (2007) The Ambiguity of the Child’s ‘Voice’ in Social Research. Childhood 14(1):11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568207068561

Kruijf JV, Verbrugge L, Schröter B, den Haan R, Cortes Arevalo J, Fliervoet J, Henze J, Albert C (2022) Knowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects. Sustain Dev 30(2):393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2281

Kump B, Wittmayer J, Bogner K, Beekman M (2023) Navigating force conflicts: a case study on strategies of transformative research in the current academic system. J Clean Prod 412:137374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137374

Kwan C, Walsh C (2018) Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory research: a narrative review of the literature. Qual Rep. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3331

Lacey J, Howden SM, Cvitanovic C, Dowd A-M (2015) Informed adaptation: ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Glob Environ Change 32:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.011

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lapadat JC (2017) Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qual Inq 23(8):589–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704462

Lincoln Y (2001) Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, SAGE Publications, London, pp 124–132

Locke T, Alcorn N, O’Neill J (2013) Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educ Action Res 21(1):107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.763448

Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42(1):599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340

Lotz-Sisitka H, Ali MB, Mphepo G, Chaves M, Macintyre T, Pesanayi T, Wals A, Mukute M, Kronlid D, Tran DT, Joon D, McGarry D (2016) Co-designing research on transgressive learning in times of climate change. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.004

Mach KJ, Lemos MC, Meadow AM, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Arnott JC, Ardoin NM, Fieseler C, Moss RH, Nichols L, Stults M, Vaughan C, Wong-Parodi G (2020) Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002

Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) (2018) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham

Malkki LH (2007) Tradition and Improvisation in Ethnographic Field Research. In: Cerwonka A, Malkki LH, Improvising Theory. Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork, The University of Chicago Press, pp 162–187

Marguin S, Haus J, Heinrich AJ, Kahl A, Schendzielorz C, Singh A (2021) Positionality Reloaded: Über die Dimensionen der Reflexivität im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft: Ein EditorialPositionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial. Historical Soc Res 46:734. https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.7-34

McGowan KA, Westley F, Fraser EDG, Loring PA, Weathers KC, Avelino F, Sendzimir J, Roy Chowdhury R, Moore M-L (2014) The research journey: travels across the idiomatic and axiomatic toward a better understanding of complexity. Ecol Soc 19(3):art37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06518-190337

Menon S, Hartz-Karp J (2023) Applying mixed methods action research to explore how public participation in an Indian City could better resolve urban sustainability problems. Action Res 21(2):230–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320943662

Mertens DM (2007) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res 1(3):212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

Mertens DM (2017) Transformative research: Personal and societal. Int J Transform Res 4(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001

Mertens DM (2021) Transformative research methods to increase social impact for vulnerable groups and cultural minorities. Int J Qua Methods 20:160940692110515. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051563

Midgley G (2011) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 24:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9176-2

Miyahara M, Fukao A (2022) Exploring the use of collaborative autoethnography as a tool for facilitating the development of researcher reflexivity. System 105:102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102751

Nastar M, Abbas S, Aponte Rivero C, Jenkins S, Kooy M (2018) The emancipatory promise of participatory water governance for the urban poor: Reflections on the transition management approach in the cities of Dodowa, Ghana and Arusha, Tanzania. Afr Stud 77(4):504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2018.1459287

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral Research. (1979) The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research ( Vol. 1 ) . United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Online available here: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray JB, Leach M, Österblom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustainability 3(3):182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41(3):179–194

Nugroho K, Carden F, Antlov H (2018) Local knowledge matters: Power, context and policy making in Indonesia. Policy Press, Bristol

Parks S, Rincon D, Parkinson S, Manville C (2019) The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future . RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3200.html

Parsell M, Ambler T, Jacenyik-Trawoger C (2014) Ethics in higher education research. Stud High Educ 39(1):166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.647766

Pearce BJ, Deutsch L, Fry P, Marafatto FF, Lieu J (2022) Going beyond the AHA! moment: insight discovery for transdisciplinary research and learning. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01129-0

Phillips L, Christensen-Strynø MB, Frølunde L (2022) Thinking with autoethnography in collaborative research: a critical, reflexive approach to relational ethics. Qual Res 22(5):761–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211033446

Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

Pohl C, Krütli P, Stauffacher M (2017) Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 26(1):43–51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10

Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

Porter A (2016) Decolonizing policing: indigenous patrols, counter-policing and safety. Theor Criminol 20(4):548–565

Reason P, Torbert W (2001) The action turn: toward a transformational social science. Concepts Transform 6(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea

Reed MG, Abernethy P (2018) Facilitating Co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with canadian biosphere reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31(1):39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545

Rovelli C (2021) Politics should listen to science, not hide behind it. Nat Mater 20(2):272–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-00891-3

Rowan J (2000) Research ethics. Int J Psychother 5(2):103–110

Saltelli A, Ravetz JR, Funtowicz S (2016) Who will solve the crisis in science? In: Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, Guimaraes Pereira A, Ravetz J, Saltelli A, Strand R, van der Sluijs JP (eds) The rightful place of science: Science on the verge. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes

Savransky M (2017) A decolonial imagination: sociology, anthropology and the politics of reality. Sociology 51(1):11–26

Sayer A (2011) Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schäpke N, Bergmann M, Stelzer F, Lang DJ (2018) Labs in the real world: advancing transdisciplinary research and sustainability transformation: mapping the field and emerging lines of inquiry. Gaia 27:8–11. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.4

Schneider F, Giger M, Harari N, Moser S, Oberlack C, Providoli I, Schmid L, Tribaldos T, Zimmermann A (2019) Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environ Sci Policy 102(October):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M, Augenstein K (2016) Transformative science for sustainability transitions. In: Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace, Springer, pp 123–136

Schut M, Paassen AV, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. 41(August 2013), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048

Smith L (2008) Ethical principles in practice. Evidence from participatory action research. Kairaranga 9(3):16–21. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v9i3.135

Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Stirling A (2006) Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In: Voß JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 225–272

Strumińska-Kutra M, Scholl C (2022) Taking power seriously: towards a power-sensitive approach for transdisciplinary action research. Futures 135(December 2021):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102881

Strydom WF, Funke N, Nienaber S, Nortje K, Steyn M (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: a review. South Afr J Sci 106(5/6):8 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.249

Temper L, Del Bene D (2016) Transforming knowledge creation for environmental and epistemic justice. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.004

Temper L, McGarry D, Weber L (2019) From academic to political rigour: insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecol Econ 164:106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379

Thomas KA, Warner BP (2019) Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change. Glob Environ Change 57:101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101928

van Breda J, Swilling M (2019) The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustain Sci 14(3):823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x

van Steenbergen F (2020) Zonder marge geen centrum. Een pleidooi voor een rechtvaardige transitie. [PhD-Thesis]. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Vermeer J, Pinheiro H, Petrosova L, Eaton D (2020) Evaluation of the Belmont Forum: Final report. Technolopolis Group. https://www.belmontforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Belmont-Forum-External-Evaluation.pdf

Vincent K (2022) Development geography I: Co-production. Prog Hum Geogr 46(3):890–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132522107905

WBGU (2011) Flagship report: world in transition—a social contract for sustainability. In: Berlin: German Advisory

West S, Schill C (2022) Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):294. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01297-z

Wijsman K, Feagan M (2019) Rethinking knowledge systems for urban resilience: Feminist and decolonial contributions to just transformations. Environ Sci Policy 98:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.017

Williamson GR, Prosser S (2002) Action research: politics, ethics and participation. J Adv Nurs 40(5):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02416.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson S (2020) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/research-is-ceremony-shawn-wilson

Wittmayer JM (2016) Transition Management, Action Research and Actor Roles: Understanding local sustainability transitions. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D, Bogner K, Hendlin Y, Hölscher K, Lavanga M, Vasques A, von Wirth T, de Wal M (2021) Transformative Research: Knowledge and action for just sustainability transitions (Design Impact Transition Platform Working Paper Series). Design Impact Transition Platform Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/transformative-research-knowledge-and-action-for-just-sustainabil

Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

Wood L, Kahts-Kramer S (2023) But how will you ensure the objectivity of the researcher?’ Guidelines to address possible misconceptions about the ethical imperatives of community-based research. Res Ethics 19(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221135882

Yanow D (2006) Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for knowledge claims in interpretive science. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P, Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, M.E. Sharpe, pp 67–88

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Derk Loorbach & Neha Mungekar

Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Timo von Wirth, Tessa Boumans & Neha Mungekar

Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Kristina Bogner

MaREI Centre for Energy Climate and Marine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Katharina Hölscher

Research Lab for Urban Transport (ReLUT), Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Timo von Wirth

Business Management & Organisation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Jilde Garst

Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Yogi Hale Hendlin

Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Mariangela Lavanga

Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Mapula Tshangela

Delft Centre for Entrepreneurship, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Pieter Vandekerckhove

Erasmus University College Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Ana Vasques

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Julia M. Wittmayer and Ying-Syuan Huang drafted the work for important intellectual content, substantially contributed to the concept and design of the work, and contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data for the work. Kristina Bogner, Evan Boyle, Katharina Hölscher, and Timo von Wirth substantially contributed to the concept or design of the work and contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work. Tessa Boumans, Jilde Garst, Yogi Hendlin, Mariangela Lavanga, Derk Loorbach, Neha Mungekar, Mapula Tshangela, Pieter Vandekerckhove, and Ana Vasues contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia M. Wittmayer .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wittmayer, J.M., Huang, YS.(., Bogner, K. et al. Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 677 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2023

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 25 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

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

Quick links

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