research article from

Find and Read Articles

PLOS publishes a suite of peer-reviewed Open Access journals that feature quality research, expert commentary, and critical analysis across all scientific disciplines.

New Articles by Email

Journal alerts.

PLOS articles publish daily and roll up into monthly issues. To receive a regular email alert with a list of articles published in each issue, sign up at the bottom of any journal homepage.

Choose how often to receive alerts and manage subscriptions from your PLOS account.

• Sign in to your account, then click the Profile button at the top of the page. 
• Navigate to the Alerts tab.
• Under Journal Alerts , check the boxes to choose weekly or monthly delivery.

The weekly email alert from PLOS ONE delivers all new articles by default.

Select Send me a custom email alert to receive articles from specific subject areas. Select one or more subject areas to add them to the email.

Search alerts

Set up a search alert to be notified when new PLOS articles are published relevant to a personalized search. To start, create or sign in to your PLOS account. Read more about PLOS accounts .

Click the link underneath the search box to navigate to the advanced search page.

Customize the search criteria by subject, article type, author, or a variety of other fields. Choose any combination of PLOS journals. 

Once you have a satisfactory set of results, select a delivery method at the top of the page. PLOS offers two delivery methods for these notices: email and RSS feed. Read more about PLOS RSS feeds .

To receive new articles by email, click the  search alert  button. Name the search, choose the email frequency, and click Save .

Unsubscribe

Unsubscribe from email alerts in your PLOS account . Sign in to your account from the top of any journal page, and click the  Profile  button.

Journal alerts Navigate to Alerts > Journal Alerts. ​Uncheck the box to unsubscribe from a specific mailing list.

Saved search alerts Navigate to  Alerts > Search Alerts . Click X  to stop receiving the alert.

New Articles by RSS

PLOS RSS feeds are regular updates with article titles and abstracts, collected in your browser or a feed reader. Use the feeds if you do not want alerts delivered by email but do want to know when new articles are published or added to a saved search. Find out how to create a search alert feed .

RSS feeds are available by clicking the RSS icon on each journal home page. Use any feed reader to collect and read the article list.

Browse by Subject Area

Each PLOS article offers a list of subject area tags based on its subject matter. Click on any term to view other PLOS articles that use the same tag.

Sign up for subject-specific alerts while browsing subject areas on the PLOS ONE site.

• Sign in or create a PLOS account .
• Click the Browse button at the top of any PLOS ONE page.

• Select a subject area from the menu to view the associated articles from PLOS ONE .

• Click the email alert button in the top right corner of the page. Then, click Save  to subscribe.

Sign Up for a PLOS Account

Sign up for a free PLOS account to manage email alerts and post comments on articles.

Create an account

Click create account at the top of any PLOS journal page to sign up.

After you fill in the form, you’ll receive an email to verify your account and complete registration.

Customize and edit your account

Sign in by clicking the button in the upper right corner from any PLOS journal page.

Click the Profile button at the top of the page to edit your account details, including personal information, email address, password, and email subscriptions.

The first time you sign in to your account, create a profile with a username and basic identifying information. Your username is attached to all comments that you post on PLOS web sites.

• Mission and history
• Platform features
• Library Advisory Group
• What’s in JSTOR
• For Librarians
• For Publishers

Open and free content on JSTOR and Artstor

Our partnerships with libraries and publishers help us make content discoverable and freely accessible worldwide

Search open content on JSTOR

Explore our growing collection of Open Access journals

Early Journal Content , articles published prior to the last 95 years in the United States, or prior to the last 143 years if initially published internationally, are freely available to all

Even more content is available when you register to read – millions of articles from nearly 2,000 journals

Thousands of Open Access ebooks are available from top scholarly publishers, including Brill, Cornell University Press, University College of London, and University of California Press – at no cost to libraries or users.

This includes Open Access titles in Spanish:

• Collaboration with El Colegio de México
• Partnership with the Latin American Council of Social Sciences

Images and media

JSTOR hosts a growing number of public collections , including Artstor’s Open Access collections , from museums, archives, libraries, and scholars worldwide.

Research reports

A curated set of more than 34,000 research reports from more than 140 policy institutes selected with faculty, librarian, and expert input.

Resources for librarians

Open content title lists:

• Open Access Journals (xlsx)
• Open Access Books (xlsx)
• JSTOR Early Journal Content (txt)
• Research Reports

Open Access ebook resources for librarians

Library-supported collections

Shared Collections : We have a growing corpus of digital special collections published on JSTOR by our institutional partners.

Reveal Digital : A collaboration with libraries to fund, source, digitize and publish open access primary source collections from under-represented voices.

JSTOR Daily

JSTOR Daily is an online publication that contextualizes current events with scholarship. All of our stories contain links to publicly accessible research on JSTOR. We’re proud to publish articles based in fact and grounded by careful research and to provide free access to that research for all of our readers.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Primacy of the research question, structure of the paper, writing a research article: advice to beginners.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas V. Perneger, Patricia M. Hudelson, Writing a research article: advice to beginners, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 191–192, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Writing research papers does not come naturally to most of us. The typical research paper is a highly codified rhetorical form [ 1 , 2 ]. Knowledge of the rules—some explicit, others implied—goes a long way toward writing a paper that will get accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

A good research paper addresses a specific research question. The research question—or study objective or main research hypothesis—is the central organizing principle of the paper. Whatever relates to the research question belongs in the paper; the rest doesn’t. This is perhaps obvious when the paper reports on a well planned research project. However, in applied domains such as quality improvement, some papers are written based on projects that were undertaken for operational reasons, and not with the primary aim of producing new knowledge. In such cases, authors should define the main research question a posteriori and design the paper around it.

Generally, only one main research question should be addressed in a paper (secondary but related questions are allowed). If a project allows you to explore several distinct research questions, write several papers. For instance, if you measured the impact of obtaining written consent on patient satisfaction at a specialized clinic using a newly developed questionnaire, you may want to write one paper on the questionnaire development and validation, and another on the impact of the intervention. The idea is not to split results into ‘least publishable units’, a practice that is rightly decried, but rather into ‘optimally publishable units’.

What is a good research question? The key attributes are: (i) specificity; (ii) originality or novelty; and (iii) general relevance to a broad scientific community. The research question should be precise and not merely identify a general area of inquiry. It can often (but not always) be expressed in terms of a possible association between X and Y in a population Z, for example ‘we examined whether providing patients about to be discharged from the hospital with written information about their medications would improve their compliance with the treatment 1 month later’. A study does not necessarily have to break completely new ground, but it should extend previous knowledge in a useful way, or alternatively refute existing knowledge. Finally, the question should be of interest to others who work in the same scientific area. The latter requirement is more challenging for those who work in applied science than for basic scientists. While it may safely be assumed that the human genome is the same worldwide, whether the results of a local quality improvement project have wider relevance requires careful consideration and argument.

Once the research question is clearly defined, writing the paper becomes considerably easier. The paper will ask the question, then answer it. The key to successful scientific writing is getting the structure of the paper right. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. The authors state: (i) the problem they intend to address—in other terms, the research question—in the Introduction; (ii) what they did to answer the question in the Methods section; (iii) what they observed in the Results section; and (iv) what they think the results mean in the Discussion.

In turn, each basic section addresses several topics, and may be divided into subsections (Table 1 ). In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. What is the research question, and why is it important to ask it? While it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a full-blown review of the literature as a prelude to the study, it is helpful to situate the study within some larger field of enquiry. The research question should always be spelled out, and not merely left for the reader to guess.

Typical structure of a research paper

The Methods section should provide the readers with sufficient detail about the study methods to be able to reproduce the study if so desired. Thus, this section should be specific, concrete, technical, and fairly detailed. The study setting, the sampling strategy used, instruments, data collection methods, and analysis strategies should be described. In the case of qualitative research studies, it is also useful to tell the reader which research tradition the study utilizes and to link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [ 3 ].

The Results section is typically fairly straightforward and factual. All results that relate to the research question should be given in detail, including simple counts and percentages. Resist the temptation to demonstrate analytic ability and the richness of the dataset by providing numerous tables of non-essential results.

The Discussion section allows the most freedom. This is why the Discussion is the most difficult to write, and is often the weakest part of a paper. Structured Discussion sections have been proposed by some journal editors [ 4 ]. While strict adherence to such rules may not be necessary, following a plan such as that proposed in Table 1 may help the novice writer stay on track.

References should be used wisely. Key assertions should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. However, unless the paper is a comprehensive review of a topic, there is no need to be exhaustive. Also, references to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided.

Having the structure of the paper in place is a good start. However, there are many details that have to be attended to while writing. An obvious recommendation is to read, and follow, the instructions to authors published by the journal (typically found on the journal’s website). Another concerns non-native writers of English: do have a native speaker edit the manuscript. A paper usually goes through several drafts before it is submitted. When revising a paper, it is useful to keep an eye out for the most common mistakes (Table 2 ). If you avoid all those, your paper should be in good shape.

Common mistakes seen in manuscripts submitted to this journal

Huth EJ . How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences , 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1990 .

Browner WS . Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999 .

Devers KJ , Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001 ; 14 : 109 –117.

Docherty M , Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Br Med J 1999 ; 318 : 1224 –1225.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

The Library Research Process, Step-by-Step

• Finding Articles
• Finding & Exploring a Topic
• Finding Books
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Understanding & Using a Citation Style

Peer Reviewed and Scholarly Articles

What are they? Peer-reviewed articles, also known as scholarly or refereed articles are papers that describe a research study. 

Why are peer-reviewed articles useful? They report on original research that have been reviewed by other experts before they are accepted for publication, so you can reasonably be assured that they contain valid information. 

How do you find them?  Many of the library's databases contain scholarly articles! You'll find more about searching databases below.

Watch: Peer Review in 3 Minutes

Why watch this video?

We are often told that scholarly and peer-reviewed sources are the most credible, but, it's sometimes hard to understand why they are credible and why we should trust these sources more than others. This video takes an in depth approach at explaining the peer review process. 

Hot Tip: Check out the Reading Scholarly Articles page for guidance on how to read and understand a scholarly article.

Using Library Databases

What Are Library Databases? 

Databases are similar to search engines but primarily search scholarly journals, magazines, newspapers and other sources. Some databases are subject specific while others are multi-disciplinary (searching across multiple fields and content types). 

You can view our most popularly used databases on the Library's Home Page , or view a list of all of our databases organized by subject or alphabetically at  U-M Library Databases .

Popular Multidisciplinary Databases

Many students use ProQuest , JSTOR , and Google Scholar for their initial search needs. These are multi-disciplinary and not subject-specific, and they can supply a very large number of  search results.

Subject-Specific Databases

Some popular subject-specific databases include PsycINFO for psychology and psychiatry related topics and  PubMed for health sciences topics. 

Why Should You Use Library Databases?

Unlike a Google search, the Library Databases will grant you access to high quality credible sources. 

The sources you'll find in library databases include:

• Scholarly journal articles
• Newspaper articles
• Theses & dissertations
• Empirical evidence

Database Filters & Limits Most databases have Filters/Limits. You can use these to narrow down your search to the specific dates, article type, or population that you are researching.

Here is an example of limits in a database, all databases look slightly different but most have these options:

Keywords and Starting a Search

What are Keywords?

• Natural language words that describe your topic 
• Allows for a more flexible search - looks for anywhere the words appear in the record
• Can lead to a broader search, but may yield irrelevant results

Keyword searching  is how we normally start a search. Pull out important words or phrases from your topic to find your keywords.

Tips for Searching with Keywords:

• Example: "climate change"
• Example:  "climate change" AND policy
• Example: comput* will return all words starting with four letters; computing, computer, compute, etc.  
• Example: wom?n will find both woman and women.

What are Subject Headings?

• Pre-defined "controlled vocabulary" that describe what an item is  about 
• Makes for a less flexible search - only the subject fields will be searched
• Targeted search; results are usually more relevant to the topic, but may miss some variations

Subject Terms and/or Headings are pre-defined terms that are used to describe the content of an item. These terms are a controlled vocabulary and function similarly to hashtags on social media. Look carefully at the results from your search. If you find an article that is relevant to the topic you want to write about, take a look at the subject headings. 

Hot Tip: Make a copy of this Google Doc to help you find and develop your topic's keywords.

More Database Recommendations

Need articles for your library research project, but not sure where to start? We recommend these top ten article databases for kicking off your research. If you can't find what you need searching in one of these top ten databases, browse the list of all library databases by subject (academic discipline) or title .

• U-M Library Articles Search This link opens in a new window Use Articles Search to locate scholarly and popular articles, as well as reference works and materials from open access archives.
• ABI/INFORM Global This link opens in a new window Indexes 3,000+ business-related periodicals (with full text for 2,000+), including Wall Street Journal.
• Academic OneFile This link opens in a new window Provides indexing for over 8,000 scholarly journals, industry periodicals, general interest magazines and newspapers.
• Access World News [NewsBank] This link opens in a new window Full text of 600+ U.S. newspapers and 260+ English-language newspapers from other countries worldwide.
• CQ Researcher This link opens in a new window Noted for its in-depth, unbiased coverage of health, social trends, criminal justice, international affairs, education, the environment, technology, and the economy.
• Gale Health and Wellness This link opens in a new window
• Humanities Abstracts (with Full Text) This link opens in a new window Covers 700 periodicals in art, film, journalism, linguistics, music, performing arts, philosophy, religion, history, literature, etc.
• JSTOR This link opens in a new window Full-text access to the archives of 2,600+ journals and 35,000+ books in the arts, humanities, social sciences and sciences.
• ProQuest Research Library This link opens in a new window Indexes over 5,000 journals and magazines, academic and popular, with full text included for over 3,600.
• PsycInfo (APA) This link opens in a new window Premier resource for surveying the literature of psychology and adjunct fields. Covers 1887-present. Produced by the APA.

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Evaluating Resources: Research Articles

Research articles.

A research article is a journal article in which the authors report on the research they did. Research articles are always primary sources. Whether or not a research article is peer reviewed depends on the journal that publishes it.

Published research articles follow a predictable pattern and will contain most, if not all, of the sections listed below. However, the names for these sections may vary.

• Title & Author(s)
• Introduction
• Methodology

To learn about the different parts of a research article, please view this tutorial:

Short video: How to Read Scholarly Articles

Learn some tips on how to efficiently read scholarly articles.

Video: How to Read a Scholarly Article

(4 min 16 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

More information

The Academic Skills Center and the Writing Center both have helpful resources on critical and academic reading that can further help you understand and evaluate research articles.

• Academic Skills Center Guide: Developing Your Reading Skills
• Academic Skills Center Webinar Archive: Savvy Strategies for Academic Reading

If you'd like to learn how to find research articles in the Library, you can view this Quick Answer.

• Quick Answer: How do I find research articles?
• Previous Page: Primary & Secondary Sources
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

22k Accesses

Abstractspiepr Abs1

Every day people do research as they gather information to learn about something of interest. In the scientific world, however, research means something different than simply gathering information. Scientific research is characterized by its careful planning and observing, by its relentless efforts to understand and explain, and by its commitment to learn from everyone else seriously engaged in research. We call this kind of research scientific inquiry and define it as “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.” By “hypotheses” we do not mean the hypotheses you encounter in statistics courses. We mean predictions about what you expect to find and rationales for why you made these predictions. Throughout this and the remaining chapters we make clear that the process of scientific inquiry applies to all kinds of research studies and data, both qualitative and quantitative.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Is Research?

Have you ever studied something carefully because you wanted to know more about it? Maybe you wanted to know more about your grandmother’s life when she was younger so you asked her to tell you stories from her childhood, or maybe you wanted to know more about a fertilizer you were about to use in your garden so you read the ingredients on the package and looked them up online. According to the dictionary definition, you were doing research.

Recall your high school assignments asking you to “research” a topic. The assignment likely included consulting a variety of sources that discussed the topic, perhaps including some “original” sources. Often, the teacher referred to your product as a “research paper.”

Were you conducting research when you interviewed your grandmother or wrote high school papers reviewing a particular topic? Our view is that you were engaged in part of the research process, but only a small part. In this book, we reserve the word “research” for what it means in the scientific world, that is, for scientific research or, more pointedly, for scientific inquiry .

Exercise 1.1

Before you read any further, write a definition of what you think scientific inquiry is. Keep it short—Two to three sentences. You will periodically update this definition as you read this chapter and the remainder of the book.

This book is about scientific inquiry—what it is and how to do it. For starters, scientific inquiry is a process, a particular way of finding out about something that involves a number of phases. Each phase of the process constitutes one aspect of scientific inquiry. You are doing scientific inquiry as you engage in each phase, but you have not done scientific inquiry until you complete the full process. Each phase is necessary but not sufficient.

In this chapter, we set the stage by defining scientific inquiry—describing what it is and what it is not—and by discussing what it is good for and why people do it. The remaining chapters build directly on the ideas presented in this chapter.

A first thing to know is that scientific inquiry is not all or nothing. “Scientificness” is a continuum. Inquiries can be more scientific or less scientific. What makes an inquiry more scientific? You might be surprised there is no universally agreed upon answer to this question. None of the descriptors we know of are sufficient by themselves to define scientific inquiry. But all of them give you a way of thinking about some aspects of the process of scientific inquiry. Each one gives you different insights.

Exercise 1.2

As you read about each descriptor below, think about what would make an inquiry more or less scientific. If you think a descriptor is important, use it to revise your definition of scientific inquiry.

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

We will present three descriptors of scientific inquiry. Each provides a different perspective and emphasizes a different aspect of scientific inquiry. We will draw on all three descriptors to compose our definition of scientific inquiry.

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

Sir Ronald Fisher, often called the father of modern statistical design, once referred to research as “experience carefully planned in advance” (1935, p. 8). He said that humans are always learning from experience, from interacting with the world around them. Usually, this learning is haphazard rather than the result of a deliberate process carried out over an extended period of time. Research, Fisher said, was learning from experience, but experience carefully planned in advance.

This phrase can be fully appreciated by looking at each word. The fact that scientific inquiry is based on experience means that it is based on interacting with the world. These interactions could be thought of as the stuff of scientific inquiry. In addition, it is not just any experience that counts. The experience must be carefully planned . The interactions with the world must be conducted with an explicit, describable purpose, and steps must be taken to make the intended learning as likely as possible. This planning is an integral part of scientific inquiry; it is not just a preparation phase. It is one of the things that distinguishes scientific inquiry from many everyday learning experiences. Finally, these steps must be taken beforehand and the purpose of the inquiry must be articulated in advance of the experience. Clearly, scientific inquiry does not happen by accident, by just stumbling into something. Stumbling into something unexpected and interesting can happen while engaged in scientific inquiry, but learning does not depend on it and serendipity does not make the inquiry scientific.

Descriptor 2. Observing Something and Trying to Explain Why It Is the Way It Is

When we were writing this chapter and googled “scientific inquiry,” the first entry was: “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work.” The emphasis is on studying, or observing, and then explaining . This descriptor takes the image of scientific inquiry beyond carefully planned experience and includes explaining what was experienced.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “explain” means “(a) to make known, (b) to make plain or understandable, (c) to give the reason or cause of, and (d) to show the logical development or relations of” (Merriam-Webster, n.d. ). We will use all these definitions. Taken together, they suggest that to explain an observation means to understand it by finding reasons (or causes) for why it is as it is. In this sense of scientific inquiry, the following are synonyms: explaining why, understanding why, and reasoning about causes and effects. Our image of scientific inquiry now includes planning, observing, and explaining why.

We need to add a final note about this descriptor. We have phrased it in a way that suggests “observing something” means you are observing something in real time—observing the way things are or the way things are changing. This is often true. But, observing could mean observing data that already have been collected, maybe by someone else making the original observations (e.g., secondary analysis of NAEP data or analysis of existing video recordings of classroom instruction). We will address secondary analyses more fully in Chap. 4 . For now, what is important is that the process requires explaining why the data look like they do.

We must note that for us, the term “data” is not limited to numerical or quantitative data such as test scores. Data can also take many nonquantitative forms, including written survey responses, interview transcripts, journal entries, video recordings of students, teachers, and classrooms, text messages, and so forth.

Exercise 1.3

What are the implications of the statement that just “observing” is not enough to count as scientific inquiry? Does this mean that a detailed description of a phenomenon is not scientific inquiry?

Find sources that define research in education that differ with our position, that say description alone, without explanation, counts as scientific research. Identify the precise points where the opinions differ. What are the best arguments for each of the positions? Which do you prefer? Why?

Descriptor 3. Updating Everyone’s Thinking in Response to More and Better Information

This descriptor focuses on a third aspect of scientific inquiry: updating and advancing the field’s understanding of phenomena that are investigated. This descriptor foregrounds a powerful characteristic of scientific inquiry: the reliability (or trustworthiness) of what is learned and the ultimate inevitability of this learning to advance human understanding of phenomena. Humans might choose not to learn from scientific inquiry, but history suggests that scientific inquiry always has the potential to advance understanding and that, eventually, humans take advantage of these new understandings.

Before exploring these bold claims a bit further, note that this descriptor uses “information” in the same way the previous two descriptors used “experience” and “observations.” These are the stuff of scientific inquiry and we will use them often, sometimes interchangeably. Frequently, we will use the term “data” to stand for all these terms.

An overriding goal of scientific inquiry is for everyone to learn from what one scientist does. Much of this book is about the methods you need to use so others have faith in what you report and can learn the same things you learned. This aspect of scientific inquiry has many implications.

One implication is that scientific inquiry is not a private practice. It is a public practice available for others to see and learn from. Notice how different this is from everyday learning. When you happen to learn something from your everyday experience, often only you gain from the experience. The fact that research is a public practice means it is also a social one. It is best conducted by interacting with others along the way: soliciting feedback at each phase, taking opportunities to present work-in-progress, and benefitting from the advice of others.

A second implication is that you, as the researcher, must be committed to sharing what you are doing and what you are learning in an open and transparent way. This allows all phases of your work to be scrutinized and critiqued. This is what gives your work credibility. The reliability or trustworthiness of your findings depends on your colleagues recognizing that you have used all appropriate methods to maximize the chances that your claims are justified by the data.

A third implication of viewing scientific inquiry as a collective enterprise is the reverse of the second—you must be committed to receiving comments from others. You must treat your colleagues as fair and honest critics even though it might sometimes feel otherwise. You must appreciate their job, which is to remain skeptical while scrutinizing what you have done in considerable detail. To provide the best help to you, they must remain skeptical about your conclusions (when, for example, the data are difficult for them to interpret) until you offer a convincing logical argument based on the information you share. A rather harsh but good-to-remember statement of the role of your friendly critics was voiced by Karl Popper, a well-known twentieth century philosopher of science: “. . . if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can” (Popper, 1968, p. 27).

A final implication of this third descriptor is that, as someone engaged in scientific inquiry, you have no choice but to update your thinking when the data support a different conclusion. This applies to your own data as well as to those of others. When data clearly point to a specific claim, even one that is quite different than you expected, you must reconsider your position. If the outcome is replicated multiple times, you need to adjust your thinking accordingly. Scientific inquiry does not let you pick and choose which data to believe; it mandates that everyone update their thinking when the data warrant an update.

Doing Scientific Inquiry

We define scientific inquiry in an operational sense—what does it mean to do scientific inquiry? What kind of process would satisfy all three descriptors: carefully planning an experience in advance; observing and trying to explain what you see; and, contributing to updating everyone’s thinking about an important phenomenon?

We define scientific inquiry as formulating , testing , and revising hypotheses about phenomena of interest.

Of course, we are not the only ones who define it in this way. The definition for the scientific method posted by the editors of Britannica is: “a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments” (Britannica, n.d. ).

Notice how defining scientific inquiry this way satisfies each of the descriptors. “Carefully planning an experience in advance” is exactly what happens when formulating a hypothesis about a phenomenon of interest and thinking about how to test it. “ Observing a phenomenon” occurs when testing a hypothesis, and “ explaining ” what is found is required when revising a hypothesis based on the data. Finally, “updating everyone’s thinking” comes from comparing publicly the original with the revised hypothesis.

Doing scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, underscores the value of accumulating knowledge rather than generating random bits of knowledge. Formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is an ongoing process, with each revised hypothesis begging for another test, whether by the same researcher or by new researchers. The editors of Britannica signaled this cyclic process by adding the following phrase to their definition of the scientific method: “The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again.” Scientific inquiry creates a process that encourages each study to build on the studies that have gone before. Through collective engagement in this process of building study on top of study, the scientific community works together to update its thinking.

Before exploring more fully the meaning of “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses,” we need to acknowledge that this is not the only way researchers define research. Some researchers prefer a less formal definition, one that includes more serendipity, less planning, less explanation. You might have come across more open definitions such as “research is finding out about something.” We prefer the tighter hypothesis formulation, testing, and revision definition because we believe it provides a single, coherent map for conducting research that addresses many of the thorny problems educational researchers encounter. We believe it is the most useful orientation toward research and the most helpful to learn as a beginning researcher.

A final clarification of our definition is that it applies equally to qualitative and quantitative research. This is a familiar distinction in education that has generated much discussion. You might think our definition favors quantitative methods over qualitative methods because the language of hypothesis formulation and testing is often associated with quantitative methods. In fact, we do not favor one method over another. In Chap. 4 , we will illustrate how our definition fits research using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Exercise 1.4

Look for ways to extend what the field knows in an area that has already received attention by other researchers. Specifically, you can search for a program of research carried out by more experienced researchers that has some revised hypotheses that remain untested. Identify a revised hypothesis that you might like to test.

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

To get a full sense of the definition of scientific inquiry we will use throughout this book, it is helpful to spend a little time with each of the key terms.

We first want to make clear that we use the term “hypothesis” as it is defined in most dictionaries and as it used in many scientific fields rather than as it is usually defined in educational statistics courses. By “hypothesis,” we do not mean a null hypothesis that is accepted or rejected by statistical analysis. Rather, we use “hypothesis” in the sense conveyed by the following definitions: “An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved” (Cambridge University Press, n.d. ), and “An unproved theory, proposition, or supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts and to provide a basis for further investigation or argument” (Agnes & Guralnik, 2008 ).

We distinguish two parts to “hypotheses.” Hypotheses consist of predictions and rationales . Predictions are statements about what you expect to find when you inquire about something. Rationales are explanations for why you made the predictions you did, why you believe your predictions are correct. So, for us “formulating hypotheses” means making explicit predictions and developing rationales for the predictions.

“Testing hypotheses” means making observations that allow you to assess in what ways your predictions were correct and in what ways they were incorrect. In education research, it is rarely useful to think of your predictions as either right or wrong. Because of the complexity of most issues you will investigate, most predictions will be right in some ways and wrong in others.

By studying the observations you make (data you collect) to test your hypotheses, you can revise your hypotheses to better align with the observations. This means revising your predictions plus revising your rationales to justify your adjusted predictions. Even though you might not run another test, formulating revised hypotheses is an essential part of conducting a research study. Comparing your original and revised hypotheses informs everyone of what you learned by conducting your study. In addition, a revised hypothesis sets the stage for you or someone else to extend your study and accumulate more knowledge of the phenomenon.

We should note that not everyone makes a clear distinction between predictions and rationales as two aspects of hypotheses. In fact, common, non-scientific uses of the word “hypothesis” may limit it to only a prediction or only an explanation (or rationale). We choose to explicitly include both prediction and rationale in our definition of hypothesis, not because we assert this should be the universal definition, but because we want to foreground the importance of both parts acting in concert. Using “hypothesis” to represent both prediction and rationale could hide the two aspects, but we make them explicit because they provide different kinds of information. It is usually easier to make predictions than develop rationales because predictions can be guesses, hunches, or gut feelings about which you have little confidence. Developing a compelling rationale requires careful thought plus reading what other researchers have found plus talking with your colleagues. Often, while you are developing your rationale you will find good reasons to change your predictions. Developing good rationales is the engine that drives scientific inquiry. Rationales are essentially descriptions of how much you know about the phenomenon you are studying. Throughout this guide, we will elaborate on how developing good rationales drives scientific inquiry. For now, we simply note that it can sharpen your predictions and help you to interpret your data as you test your hypotheses.

Hypotheses in education research take a variety of forms or types. This is because there are a variety of phenomena that can be investigated. Investigating educational phenomena is sometimes best done using qualitative methods, sometimes using quantitative methods, and most often using mixed methods (e.g., Hay, 2016 ; Weis et al. 2019a ; Weisner, 2005 ). This means that, given our definition, hypotheses are equally applicable to qualitative and quantitative investigations.

Hypotheses take different forms when they are used to investigate different kinds of phenomena. Two very different activities in education could be labeled conducting experiments and descriptions. In an experiment, a hypothesis makes a prediction about anticipated changes, say the changes that occur when a treatment or intervention is applied. You might investigate how students’ thinking changes during a particular kind of instruction.

A second type of hypothesis, relevant for descriptive research, makes a prediction about what you will find when you investigate and describe the nature of a situation. The goal is to understand a situation as it exists rather than to understand a change from one situation to another. In this case, your prediction is what you expect to observe. Your rationale is the set of reasons for making this prediction; it is your current explanation for why the situation will look like it does.

You will probably read, if you have not already, that some researchers say you do not need a prediction to conduct a descriptive study. We will discuss this point of view in Chap. 2 . For now, we simply claim that scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, applies to all kinds of research studies. Descriptive studies, like others, not only benefit from formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, but also need hypothesis formulating, testing, and revising.

One reason we define research as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is that if you think of research in this way you are less likely to go wrong. It is a useful guide for the entire process, as we will describe in detail in the chapters ahead. For example, as you build the rationale for your predictions, you are constructing the theoretical framework for your study (Chap. 3 ). As you work out the methods you will use to test your hypothesis, every decision you make will be based on asking, “Will this help me formulate or test or revise my hypothesis?” (Chap. 4 ). As you interpret the results of testing your predictions, you will compare them to what you predicted and examine the differences, focusing on how you must revise your hypotheses (Chap. 5 ). By anchoring the process to formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, you will make smart decisions that yield a coherent and well-designed study.

Exercise 1.5

Compare the concept of formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses with the descriptions of scientific inquiry contained in Scientific Research in Education (NRC, 2002 ). How are they similar or different?

Exercise 1.6

Provide an example to illustrate and emphasize the differences between everyday learning/thinking and scientific inquiry.

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

We noted earlier that a measure of what you have learned by conducting a research study is found in the differences between your original hypothesis and your revised hypothesis based on the data you collected to test your hypothesis. We will elaborate this statement in later chapters, but we preview our argument here.

Even before collecting data, scientific inquiry requires cycles of making a prediction, developing a rationale, refining your predictions, reading and studying more to strengthen your rationale, refining your predictions again, and so forth. And, even if you have run through several such cycles, you still will likely find that when you test your prediction you will be partly right and partly wrong. The results will support some parts of your predictions but not others, or the results will “kind of” support your predictions. A critical part of scientific inquiry is making sense of your results by interpreting them against your predictions. Carefully describing what aspects of your data supported your predictions, what aspects did not, and what data fell outside of any predictions is not an easy task, but you cannot learn from your study without doing this analysis.

Analyzing the matches and mismatches between your predictions and your data allows you to formulate different rationales that would have accounted for more of the data. The best revised rationale is the one that accounts for the most data. Once you have revised your rationales, you can think about the predictions they best justify or explain. It is by comparing your original rationales to your new rationales that you can sort out what you learned from your study.

Suppose your study was an experiment. Maybe you were investigating the effects of a new instructional intervention on students’ learning. Your original rationale was your explanation for why the intervention would change the learning outcomes in a particular way. Your revised rationale explained why the changes that you observed occurred like they did and why your revised predictions are better. Maybe your original rationale focused on the potential of the activities if they were implemented in ideal ways and your revised rationale included the factors that are likely to affect how teachers implement them. By comparing the before and after rationales, you are describing what you learned—what you can explain now that you could not before. Another way of saying this is that you are describing how much more you understand now than before you conducted your study.

Revised predictions based on carefully planned and collected data usually exhibit some of the following features compared with the originals: more precision, more completeness, and broader scope. Revised rationales have more explanatory power and become more complete, more aligned with the new predictions, sharper, and overall more convincing.

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

Doing scientific inquiry is a lot of work. Each phase of the process takes time, and you will often cycle back to improve earlier phases as you engage in later phases. Because of the significant effort required, you should make sure your study is worth it. So, from the beginning, you should think about the purpose of your study. Why do you want to do it? And, because research is a social practice, you should also think about whether the results of your study are likely to be important and significant to the education community.

If you are doing research in the way we have described—as scientific inquiry—then one purpose of your study is to understand , not just to describe or evaluate or report. As we noted earlier, when you formulate hypotheses, you are developing rationales that explain why things might be like they are. In our view, trying to understand and explain is what separates research from other kinds of activities, like evaluating or describing.

One reason understanding is so important is that it allows researchers to see how or why something works like it does. When you see how something works, you are better able to predict how it might work in other contexts, under other conditions. And, because conditions, or contextual factors, matter a lot in education, gaining insights into applying your findings to other contexts increases the contributions of your work and its importance to the broader education community.

Consequently, the purposes of research studies in education often include the more specific aim of identifying and understanding the conditions under which the phenomena being studied work like the observations suggest. A classic example of this kind of study in mathematics education was reported by William Brownell and Harold Moser in 1949 . They were trying to establish which method of subtracting whole numbers could be taught most effectively—the regrouping method or the equal additions method. However, they realized that effectiveness might depend on the conditions under which the methods were taught—“meaningfully” versus “mechanically.” So, they designed a study that crossed the two instructional approaches with the two different methods (regrouping and equal additions). Among other results, they found that these conditions did matter. The regrouping method was more effective under the meaningful condition than the mechanical condition, but the same was not true for the equal additions algorithm.

What do education researchers want to understand? In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to develop understanding that supports the improvement of learning opportunities for all students. We say “ultimate” because there are lots of issues that must be understood to improve learning opportunities for all students. Hypotheses about many aspects of education are connected, ultimately, to students’ learning. For example, formulating and testing a hypothesis that preservice teachers need to engage in particular kinds of activities in their coursework in order to teach particular topics well is, ultimately, connected to improving students’ learning opportunities. So is hypothesizing that school districts often devote relatively few resources to instructional leadership training or hypothesizing that positioning mathematics as a tool students can use to combat social injustice can help students see the relevance of mathematics to their lives.

We do not exclude the importance of research on educational issues more removed from improving students’ learning opportunities, but we do think the argument for their importance will be more difficult to make. If there is no way to imagine a connection between your hypothesis and improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Notice that we said the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. For too long, educators have been satisfied with a goal of offering rich learning opportunities for lots of students, sometimes even for just the majority of students, but not necessarily for all students. Evaluations of success often are based on outcomes that show high averages. In other words, if many students have learned something, or even a smaller number have learned a lot, educators may have been satisfied. The problem is that there is usually a pattern in the groups of students who receive lower quality opportunities—students of color and students who live in poor areas, urban and rural. This is not acceptable. Consequently, we emphasize the premise that the purpose of education research is to offer rich learning opportunities to all students.

One way to make sure you will be able to convince others of the importance of your study is to consider investigating some aspect of teachers’ shared instructional problems. Historically, researchers in education have set their own research agendas, regardless of the problems teachers are facing in schools. It is increasingly recognized that teachers have had trouble applying to their own classrooms what researchers find. To address this problem, a researcher could partner with a teacher—better yet, a small group of teachers—and talk with them about instructional problems they all share. These discussions can create a rich pool of problems researchers can consider. If researchers pursued one of these problems (preferably alongside teachers), the connection to improving learning opportunities for all students could be direct and immediate. “Grounding a research question in instructional problems that are experienced across multiple teachers’ classrooms helps to ensure that the answer to the question will be of sufficient scope to be relevant and significant beyond the local context” (Cai et al., 2019b , p. 115).

As a beginning researcher, determining the relevance and importance of a research problem is especially challenging. We recommend talking with advisors, other experienced researchers, and peers to test the educational importance of possible research problems and topics of study. You will also learn much more about the issue of research importance when you read Chap. 5 .

Exercise 1.7

Identify a problem in education that is closely connected to improving learning opportunities and a problem that has a less close connection. For each problem, write a brief argument (like a logical sequence of if-then statements) that connects the problem to all students’ learning opportunities.

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

Scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses about phenomena that are not fully understood—by you or anyone else. Even if you are able to inform your hypotheses with lots of knowledge that has already been accumulated, you are likely to find that your prediction is not entirely accurate. This is normal. Remember, scientific inquiry is a process of constantly updating your thinking. More and better information means revising your thinking, again, and again, and again. Because you never fully understand a complicated phenomenon and your hypotheses never produce completely accurate predictions, it is easy to believe you are somehow failing.

The trick is to fail upward, to fail to predict accurately in ways that inform your next hypothesis so you can make a better prediction. Some of the best-known researchers in education have been open and honest about the many times their predictions were wrong and, based on the results of their studies and those of others, they continuously updated their thinking and changed their hypotheses.

A striking example of publicly revising (actually reversing) hypotheses due to incorrect predictions is found in the work of Lee J. Cronbach, one of the most distinguished educational psychologists of the twentieth century. In 1955, Cronbach delivered his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Titling it “Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,” Cronbach proposed a rapprochement between two research approaches—correlational studies that focused on individual differences and experimental studies that focused on instructional treatments controlling for individual differences. (We will examine different research approaches in Chap. 4 ). If these approaches could be brought together, reasoned Cronbach ( 1957 ), researchers could find interactions between individual characteristics and treatments (aptitude-treatment interactions or ATIs), fitting the best treatments to different individuals.

In 1975, after years of research by many researchers looking for ATIs, Cronbach acknowledged the evidence for simple, useful ATIs had not been found. Even when trying to find interactions between a few variables that could provide instructional guidance, the analysis, said Cronbach, creates “a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity, tormenting even the boldest investigators and defeating even ambitious designs” (Cronbach, 1975 , p. 119).

As he was reflecting back on his work, Cronbach ( 1986 ) recommended moving away from documenting instructional effects through statistical inference (an approach he had championed for much of his career) and toward approaches that probe the reasons for these effects, approaches that provide a “full account of events in a time, place, and context” (Cronbach, 1986 , p. 104). This is a remarkable change in hypotheses, a change based on data and made fully transparent. Cronbach understood the value of failing productively.

Closer to home, in a less dramatic example, one of us began a line of scientific inquiry into how to prepare elementary preservice teachers to teach early algebra. Teaching early algebra meant engaging elementary students in early forms of algebraic reasoning. Such reasoning should help them transition from arithmetic to algebra. To begin this line of inquiry, a set of activities for preservice teachers were developed. Even though the activities were based on well-supported hypotheses, they largely failed to engage preservice teachers as predicted because of unanticipated challenges the preservice teachers faced. To capitalize on this failure, follow-up studies were conducted, first to better understand elementary preservice teachers’ challenges with preparing to teach early algebra, and then to better support preservice teachers in navigating these challenges. In this example, the initial failure was a necessary step in the researchers’ scientific inquiry and furthered the researchers’ understanding of this issue.

We present another example of failing productively in Chap. 2 . That example emerges from recounting the history of a well-known research program in mathematics education.

Making mistakes is an inherent part of doing scientific research. Conducting a study is rarely a smooth path from beginning to end. We recommend that you keep the following things in mind as you begin a career of conducting research in education.

First, do not get discouraged when you make mistakes; do not fall into the trap of feeling like you are not capable of doing research because you make too many errors.

Second, learn from your mistakes. Do not ignore your mistakes or treat them as errors that you simply need to forget and move past. Mistakes are rich sites for learning—in research just as in other fields of study.

Third, by reflecting on your mistakes, you can learn to make better mistakes, mistakes that inform you about a productive next step. You will not be able to eliminate your mistakes, but you can set a goal of making better and better mistakes.

Exercise 1.8

How does scientific inquiry differ from everyday learning in giving you the tools to fail upward? You may find helpful perspectives on this question in other resources on science and scientific inquiry (e.g., Failure: Why Science is So Successful by Firestein, 2015).

Exercise 1.9

Use what you have learned in this chapter to write a new definition of scientific inquiry. Compare this definition with the one you wrote before reading this chapter. If you are reading this book as part of a course, compare your definition with your colleagues’ definitions. Develop a consensus definition with everyone in the course.

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

Now that you have a good idea of what research is, at least of what we believe research is, the next step is to think about how to actually begin doing research. This means how to begin formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. As for all phases of scientific inquiry, there are lots of things to think about. Because it is critical to start well, we devote Chap. 2 to getting started with formulating hypotheses.

Agnes, M., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (2008). Hypothesis. In Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Britannica. (n.d.). Scientific method. In Encyclopaedia Britannica . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in grade III subtraction . Duke University Press..

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Hypothesis. In Cambridge dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis

Cronbach, J. L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12 , 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30 , 116–127.

Cronbach, L. J. (1986). Social inquiry by and for earthlings. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 83–107). University of Chicago Press.

Hay, C. M. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research . University of Chicago Press.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Explain. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press.

Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Duncan, G. J., Albro, E., Bueschel, A. C., Cobb, P., Eccles, J., Mendenhall, R., Moss, P., Penuel, W., Ream, R. K., Rumbaut, R. G., Sloane, F., Weisner, T. S., & Wilson, J. (2019a). Mixed methods for studies that address broad and enduring issues in education research. Teachers College Record, 121 , 100307.

Weisner, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

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

The top 10 journal articles

This year, APA’s 89 journals published more than 4,000 articles. Here are the most downloaded to date.

By Lea Winerman

December 2018, Vol 49, No. 11

Print version: page 36

1: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research in Psychology

This American Psychologist open-access article lays out—for the first time—journal article reporting standards for qualitative research in psychology (Levitt, H.M., et al., Vol. 73, No. 1). The voluntary guidelines are designed to help authors communicate their work clearly, accurately and transparently. Developed by a working group of the APA Publications and Communications Board, the new standards describe what should be included in a qualitative research report, as well as in qualitative meta-analyses and mixed-methods research reports. They cover a range of qualitative traditions, methods and reporting styles. The article presents these standards and their rationale, details the ways they differ from quantitative research reporting standards and describes how they can be used by authors as well as by reviewers and editors. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000151

2: The Relationship Between Frequency of Instagram Use, Exposure to Idealized Images, and Psychological Well-Being in Women

Frequent use of the social media photo-sharing app Instagram could contribute to negative psychological outcomes in women, suggests this study in Psychology of Popular Media Culture (Sherlock, M., & Wagstaff, D.L., advance online publication). Researchers surveyed 119 women, ages 18 to 35, about their Instagram use, mental health outcomes and self-perceptions. On average, more Instagram use was correlated with more depressive symptoms, lower self-esteem, more general and physical appearance anxiety, and more body dissatisfaction. In a follow-up experiment, the researchers showed women beauty, fitness or travel images from Instagram. Participants who saw the beauty and fitness images rated their own attractiveness lower than a control group that saw no images. DOI: 10.1037/ppm0000182

3: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology

This open-access article in American Psychologist lays out new journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in APA journals (Appelbaum, M., et al., Vol. 73, No. 1). The new standards are voluntary guidelines for authors and reviewers, developed by a task force of APA’s Publications and Communications Board. The recommendations include dividing the hypotheses, analyses and conclusions sections into primary, secondary and exploratory groupings to enhance understanding and reproducibility. The standards also offer modules for authors reporting on N-of-1 designs, replications, clinical trials, longitudinal studies and observational studies, structural equation modeling and Bayesian analysis. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000191

4: The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Item and Associative Recognition Memory

Sleep deprivation degrades different kinds of memory in the same way, finds this study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (Ratcliff, R., & Van Dongen, H., Vol. 44, No. 2). Researchers assigned 26 participants to either a sleep-deprivation group or a control group. Before and after 57 hours of sleep deprivation, the participants did two memory tests in which they were shown word pairs and asked to recognize whether a word was on the pairs list (item recognition) or whether two words were studied in the same pair (associative recognition). Using a diffusion decision model, they found that sleep deprivation, unlike aging-related memory decline, reduced the quality of the information stored in memory for both tests to the same degree. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000452

5: Do the Associations of Parenting Styles with Behavior Problems and Academic Achievement Vary by Culture?

Children with authoritative (high-warmth, high-control) parents have fewer behavior problems and better academic achievement compared with children of authoritarian (low-warmth, high-control) parents, and that association generally holds up across different countries and cultural groups, finds this meta-analysis in Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology (Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R., Vol. 24, No. 1). Researchers analyzed the results of 428 studies of parenting styles, with data on nearly 350,000 children from 52 countries. They found more similarities than differences in children’s responses to different parenting styles across ethnic groups and geographic regions. Authoritative parenting was associated with at least one positive outcome and authoritarian parenting was associated with at least one negative outcome in all regions. Overall, the association between parenting style and child outcomes was weaker in countries with more individualistic cultures. DOI: 10.1037/cdp0000149

6: Social Media Behavior, Toxic Masculinity and Depression

Men who adhere to standards of "toxic masculinity" are more likely to engage in negative behaviors on social media and are also more likely to suffer from depression, and these variables are intertwined in nuanced ways, according to a study in Psychology of Men & Masculinity (Parent, M.C., et al., advance online publication). In an online survey with 402 men, ages 18 to 74, researchers measured three areas: participants’ beliefs in toxic masculinity (sexism, heterosexism and competitiveness); their symptoms of depression; and their social media behavior, such as how often they posted positive or negative comments about things they saw online. Overall, the researchers found that men who endorsed "toxic masculinity" ideals reported more negative online behaviors and that negative online behaviors were associated with depression. DOI: 10.1037/men0000156

7: Prevention of Relapse in Major Depressive Disorder With Either Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy or Cognitive Therapy

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) and cognitive therapy (CT) are equally effective ways to prevent patients from relapsing into depression, finds this article in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Farb, N., et al., Vol. 86, No. 2). In the randomized trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , 166 patients in remission from major depressive disorder were assigned to an eight-week session of either MBCT or CT. Researchers then followed the patients for two years, checking in on their depression symptoms every three months. Overall, relapse rates did not differ between the two treatment groups (18 out of 84 patients in the CT group and 18 out of 82 in the MBCT group), nor did the average time to relapse. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000266

8: What Do Undergraduates Learn About Human Intelligence?

Many psychology textbooks contain inaccurate and incomplete information about intelligence, finds this analysis in the open-access, open-data journal  Archives of Scientific Psychology  (Warne, R.T., et al., Vol. 6, No. 1). By examining 29 of the most popular introductory psychology textbooks, researchers found that 79.3 percent contained inaccurate statements in their sections about intelligence and 79.3 percent contained logical fallacies. The five most commonly taught topics were IQ (93.1 percent), Gardner’s multiple intelligences (93.1 percent), Spearman’s g (93.1 percent), Sternberg’s triarchic theory (89.7 percent) and how intelligence is measured (82.8 percent), but few texts discussed the relative lack of empirical evidence for some of these theories. The authors note the limitations of the study, including the choice of standards for accuracy and the inherent subjectivity required for some of the data collection process.  DOI: 10.1037/arc0000038

9: Bullying Victimization and Student Engagement in Schools

Students at schools with less bullying and more positive atmospheres are more engaged with their schoolwork and school communities, finds this study in School Psychology Quarterly (Yang, C., et al., Vol. 33, No. 1). Researchers surveyed nearly 26,000 Delaware public school students in fourth through 12th grade about how often they had been the victims of bullying, as well as their perceptions of their schools’ climate, including teacher-student relationships, student-student relationships, fairness of rules, clarity of expectations, school safety and respect for diversity. Students also took a survey that assessed their levels of emotional and cognitive-behavioral engagement in their schools, including how happy they felt at school and how committed they were to their schoolwork. After controlling for student and school demographic factors including gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, a positive school climate was associated with higher student engagement across all grades. DOI: 10.1037/spq0000250

10: Emotion Regulation Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder With and Without Co-Occurring Depression

Emotion regulation therapy (ERT) is an effective treatment for generalized anxiety disorder, with or without co-occurring major depression, finds this study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Mennin, D.S., et al., Vol. 86, No. 3). ERT uses principles from cognitive-behavioral therapy and affect science to teach patients to identify, accept and manage their emotions and to use this awareness to guide their thinking and behavior. Researchers assigned 53 patients with anxiety (23 of whom also had depression) to be treated with ERT or to be part of a control group awaiting treatment. After 20 weeks, patients in the treatment group showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in anxiety and depression symptoms—including functional impairment, quality of life, worry and rumination—compared with the control group. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000289

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

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

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/08/us-ai-safety-institute-signs-agreements-regarding-ai-safety-research

U.S. AI Safety Institute Signs Agreements Regarding AI Safety Research, Testing and Evaluation With Anthropic and OpenAI

These first-of-their-kind agreements between the u.s. government and industry will help advance safe and trustworthy ai innovation for all..

GAITHERSBURG, Md. — Today, the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced agreements that enable formal collaboration on AI safety research, testing and evaluation with both Anthropic and OpenAI.

Each company’s Memorandum of Understanding establishes the framework for the U.S. AI Safety Institute to receive access to major new models from each company prior to and following their public release. The agreements will enable collaborative research on how to evaluate capabilities and safety risks, as well as methods to mitigate those risks. 

“Safety is essential to fueling breakthrough technological innovation. With these agreements in place, we look forward to beginning our technical collaborations with Anthropic and OpenAI to advance the science of AI safety,” said Elizabeth Kelly, director of the U.S. AI Safety Institute. “These agreements are just the start, but they are an important milestone as we work to help responsibly steward the future of AI.”

Additionally, the U.S. AI Safety Institute plans to provide feedback to Anthropic and OpenAI on potential safety improvements to their models, in close collaboration with its partners at the U.K. AI Safety Institute. 

The U.S. AI Safety Institute builds on NIST’s more than 120-year legacy of advancing measurement science, technology, standards and related tools. Evaluations under these agreements will further NIST’s work on AI by facilitating deep collaboration and exploratory research on advanced AI systems across a range of risk areas.

Evaluations conducted pursuant to these agreements will help advance the safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI by building on the Biden-Harris administration’s Executive Order on AI and the voluntary commitments made to the administration by leading AI model developers.

About the U.S. AI Safety Institute

The U.S. AI Safety Institute , located within the Department of Commerce at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), was established following the Biden-Harris administration’s 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence to advance the science of AI safety and address the risks posed by advanced AI systems. It is tasked with developing the testing, evaluations and guidelines that will help accelerate safe AI innovation here in the United States and around the world. 

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Latest science news, discoveries and analysis

Researchers built an ‘AI Scientist’ — what can it do?

Mpox is spreading rapidly. Here are the questions researchers are racing to answer

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

Huge SpaceX rocket explosion shredded the upper atmosphere

What accelerates brain ageing this ai 'brain clock' points to answers, japan moves to halt long-term postgraduate decline by tripling number of phd graduates, lonely playful why are dolphin attacks rising in japan, inside china’s race to lead the world in nuclear fusion, scientists, your local communities need you. it’s time to step up arti garg.

The cool technologies that could protect cities from dangerous heat

Can ageing be stopped? A biologist explains

AI analysed 1,500 policies to cut emissions. These ones worked

Covert racism in AI chatbots, precise Stone Age engineering, and the science of paper cuts

Audio long read: so you got a null result. will anyone publish it, the race to save fossils exposed by brazil’s record-setting floods, are you what you eat biggest-ever catalogue of food microbes finds out, humanity’s newest brain gains are most at risk from ageing.

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

AI firms must play fair when they use academic data in training

The meaning of the Anthropocene: why it matters even without a formal geological definition

Light bulbs have energy ratings — so why can’t ai chatbots, south korea can overcome its researcher shortage — but it must embrace all talents, current issue.

Inner membrane turns inside out to exit mitochondrial organelles

Black holes regulate cool gas accretion in massive galaxies, a nebular origin for the persistent radio emission of fast radio bursts, research analysis.

The heart is put at risk of rupture by cells bordering damaged tissue

Superconductor surprises with strongly interacting electrons

LLMs produce racist output when prompted in African American English

People who lack the immune protein TNF can still fight infection

Man versus horse: who wins, placebo effect involves unexpected brain regions, switching between tasks can cause ai to lose the ability to learn.

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

How to harness AI’s potential in research — responsibly and ethically

How i create virtual twins for fabrics and furniture, partners in drug discovery: how to collaborate with non-governmental organizations, books & culture.

Fall of the wild: why pristine wilderness is a human-made myth

Denebian Glamour’s what’s hot and what’s not for the next millennium

Forever young: what science can and can’t tell us about cheating ageing

Planet earth turns slowly, nature podcast.

Latest videos

Nature briefing.

An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Quick links

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

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

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

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Science and Technology Directorate

Feature Article: Communications From Above

S&T brought law enforcement personnel from all over the country to the fields of Mississippi to test and evaluate a new way to communicate with crowds.

On a hot and humid July day in a field of corn and soy plants, a large unmanned aircraft system (UAS), or drone, was buzzing a hundred feet above a small group of people. With their eyes on the sky, these first responders and evaluators with clipboards from the Science and Technology Directorate’s National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) stood 15 feet away from a speaker on the ground blaring the sounds of a huge and raucous crowd at them.

Through all of the noise came a loud, and surprisingly clear, voice from the drone hovering far above, “Please exit to the north side of the plaza.”

This was just one of the tests performed at the recent OFA for the Bellbird Aerial Communications Platform, held at Mississippi State University in Starkville, Mississippi.

Designed and prototyped for S&T’s First Responder Capability program by Cornerstone Research Group (CRG), the Bellbird was conceived as a safer, more efficient way for law enforcement and first responders to share critical emergency information with large crowds.

Many agencies currently rely on bullhorns or Long Range Acoustic Devices mounted on vehicles to communicate with crowds, but those methods may only reach a limited section of the crowd, leaving large numbers of people potentially unaware of what first responders are trying to tell them. For the Bellbird, S&T and CRG equipped existing UAS technology with a large speaker and a boom microphone to facilitate two-way communication with large crowds while maintaining a safe distance. The speakers will amplify critical emergency instruction throughout the crowd, while the microphone will enable individuals to relay on-the-ground information back to responders for enhanced situational awareness.

Brenda Long is a Program Manager in the First Responder Capability program and oversees the Bellbird effort for S&T. “The OFA is testing the maneuverability of the drone and trying to make sure that it works the way that the first responders will need it to. Is it loud enough? Is it clear enough for people to hear? The idea is to have very clear messages to the crowd, to help keep them safe, and to keep the first responders safe.”

The test was designed and conducted by a team from NUSTL, one of five S&T national labs. “Our lab serves as a technical advisor to first responders, primarily at the state and local level, but we support the Department of Homeland Security components as well,” said Patel. “A big part of that is conducting tests and evaluations on emerging technologies, and on commercially available technologies, trying to get to the ground truth of how these technologies work and whether or not they are going to be effective for first responders to use out in the field.”

The first responders that gathered for the OFA all took turns assembling, flying, and programming the announcements on the Bellbird.

Matt Didier, a Lieutenant with the Seattle Police Department, thought the bellbird had a lot of potential. “I was actually surprised at how clearly I could hear it when it was a hundred feet off the ground and a hundred feet away from us, while 80 plus decibels of background noise was going on around me. That would be an ideal location when working with crowds, because it's keeping us away from the crowd for safety of the crowd, but still able to deliver a clear message.”

NUSTL will issue a report later this year outlining findings from the OFA and then Long and her team will move forward with any modifications and fine-tuning the participants recommended. The goal, as always, is to equip first responders with the tools they need to keep all of us safe.

For additional information about the Bellbird and S&T’s ongoing first responder research and development efforts, contact [email protected] .

• Science and Technology
• Emergency Communication
• Law Enforcement