Identify
Explore
Discover
Discuss
Summarise
Describe
Last, format your objectives into a numbered list. This is because when you write your thesis or dissertation, you will at times need to make reference to a specific research objective; structuring your research objectives in a numbered list will provide a clear way of doing this.
To bring all this together, let’s compare the first research objective in the previous example with the above guidance:
Research Objective:
1. Develop finite element models using explicit dynamics to mimic mallet blows during cup/shell insertion, initially using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum.
Checking Against Recommended Approach:
Q: Is it specific? A: Yes, it is clear what the student intends to do (produce a finite element model), why they intend to do it (mimic cup/shell blows) and their parameters have been well-defined ( using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum ).
Q: Is it measurable? A: Yes, it is clear that the research objective will be achieved once the finite element model is complete.
Q: Is it achievable? A: Yes, provided the student has access to a computer lab, modelling software and laboratory data.
Q: Is it relevant? A: Yes, mimicking impacts to a cup/shell is fundamental to the overall aim of understanding how they deform when impacted upon.
Q: Is it timebound? A: Yes, it is possible to create a limited-scope finite element model in a relatively short time, especially if you already have experience in modelling.
Q: Does it start with a verb? A: Yes, it starts with ‘develop’, which makes the intent of the objective immediately clear.
Q: Is it a numbered list? A: Yes, it is the first research objective in a list of eight.
1. making your research aim too broad.
Having a research aim too broad becomes very difficult to achieve. Normally, this occurs when a student develops their research aim before they have a good understanding of what they want to research. Remember that at the end of your project and during your viva defence , you will have to prove that you have achieved your research aims; if they are too broad, this will be an almost impossible task. In the early stages of your research project, your priority should be to narrow your study to a specific area. A good way to do this is to take the time to study existing literature, question their current approaches, findings and limitations, and consider whether there are any recurring gaps that could be investigated .
Note: Achieving a set of aims does not necessarily mean proving or disproving a theory or hypothesis, even if your research aim was to, but having done enough work to provide a useful and original insight into the principles that underlie your research aim.
Be realistic about what you can achieve in the time you have available. It is natural to want to set ambitious research objectives that require sophisticated data collection and analysis, but only completing this with six months before the end of your PhD registration period is not a worthwhile trade-off.
Each research objective should have its own purpose and distinct measurable outcome. To this effect, a common mistake is to form research objectives which have large amounts of overlap. This makes it difficult to determine when an objective is truly complete, and also presents challenges in estimating the duration of objectives when creating your project timeline. It also makes it difficult to structure your thesis into unique chapters, making it more challenging for you to write and for your audience to read.
Fortunately, this oversight can be easily avoided by using SMART objectives.
Hopefully, you now have a good idea of how to create an effective set of aims and objectives for your research project, whether it be a thesis, dissertation or research paper. While it may be tempting to dive directly into your research, spending time on getting your aims and objectives right will give your research clear direction. This won’t only reduce the likelihood of problems arising later down the line, but will also lead to a more thorough and coherent research project.
Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.
Join thousands of students.
Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.
From John W. Creswell \(2016\). 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher \ . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Andrew a. monte.
1 University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
Grant writing starts with crafting an effective Specific Aims page. This page should be a succinct combination of sales pitch and science. The Specific Aims page demonstrates a problem, a gap in current knowledge, and suggests a solution. It proposes aims that work toward a defended solution and reveal the impact of the proposal on the problem, the field, and future research. The language must be efficient and persuasive; the presentation must drive a reviewer to support the proposal. Here we present a refined recipe for an effective Specific Aims page.
Grant writing starts with the iterative development of a Specific Aims page. The Aims page serves as a concept sheet with project milestones, hypotheses, and the most important elements of the approach.[ 1 ] This page also serves as a master plan for the research proposal and ideally engages the reader as an advocate during review. The readers are review panel members that will advocate for or against your project during review. Grant reviewers often have significantly different research experience and training than the grant writer. Thus, this page must give the educated non-expert a basic understanding of the problem while giving just enough detail to indicate mastery, should the reviewer be an expert on the topic. An effective Aims page makes the case that the research is important, the methods are likely to be successful, and the applicant is the right person and team to do the project. While these goals seem simple, conveying these elements efficiently and coherently is challenging. If the Specific Aims page is confusing, boring, or overly controversial then reviewers may be lost as advocates. In contrast, effective Aims page predisposes the reader to stay engaged and eager for subsequent details. Although a grant cannot be won with the Specific Aims page, a proposal can be lost on there by confusing or alienating reviewers.
Some grant writers chafe at the notion that they need to “sell” their ideas because the proposed science should stand alone as compelling and valuable. We posit that a grant proposal is both sales and science in different parts. We define the goal of grant writing as gaining financial sponsorship for planned work; like sales, a proposal requires marketing, tailoring, and a value proposition. In contrast, science requires content and intent, a hypothesis and approach, thus science is the research that will be conducted with sponsorship. The Aims page is the point of sale for planned science and written with the goal of research sponsorship. The target audience is the review panel, and the goal is to enlist reviewers as partners and advocates of the proposal. Table 1 describes similarities between elements of effective sales and grant proposals.
Similarities: Sales and Grantsmanship
Sales | Proposals |
---|---|
Something special to offer | Significance/Importance |
Good first impressions | Specific aims page |
Context: prepared, knowledgeable | Background |
Appropriate credentials, endorsements | Biosketch, Letters of Collaboration |
Supporting documentation | Pilot data, publications |
Clear, understandable message | Abstract, Approach |
First, the Aims page should be written to an educated non-expert audience, saving the field-specific details for content experts in later sections. Also, the Specific Aims page should make the overall plan as simple as possible, but not simpler, including only “need to know” information. Demonstrating the depth of expertise and fine details of pilot data are best deployed in later sections of the grant; instead, identify the problem to study, educate the reader with background knowledge, and describe why the proposed study will successfully solve the problem. Generally, citations are minimized on the Aims page because they can distract the reader and will be included in the background section of the grant. Obey the “cultural norms” that vary by discipline or review group; for example, whether hypotheses or short descriptive approach statements are listed by aim or as a preamble. Consider adding a figure on the Specific Aims page. Simple figures, such as conceptual models or relationships among key variables, are encouraged to save words and provide visual reinforcement. While format may vary, all Aims pages should educate the non-expert reader on existing literature, identify a knowledge gap, propose a solution grounded in the aims themselves, and demonstrate the impact of the work.
Based upon our collective experience as grant writers, grant reviewers, and mentors to numerous externally-funded investigators, we have characterized effective Specific Aims pages with a “recipe.” Because there exists a recipe for success, and because of this page’s critical importance in review, this manuscript explains the four key components of an effective Specific Aims page ( Table 2 ). This recipe for the Specific Aims page is an essential first step to successful grant writing; we conclude with overviews of formatting and writing style.
Four Components for Effective Specific Aims Page
Component Paragraph Summary | Issues Briefly Addressed |
---|---|
Introductory Paragraph | |
Significant problem, solving problem aligned with mission of sponsor | |
Rationale Paragraph: What, Why, Who | |
Presents solution to the problem that successfully addresses identified need | |
Specific Aims | |
Outlines key steps to fulfill objectives and address a critical need | |
Overall Impact Paragraph | |
Return on investment, value proposition for project and future inquiry |
Paragraph 1 begins with a first sentence that is compelling, catchy, includes all pertinent key words, and conveys importance and impact. The typical broad first sentence that “bad things happen to many people” is insufficient as it does not telegraph appropriate expectations of what comes next; in fact, the rest of the paragraph should be predictable if the first sentence effectively frames the problem. A solid opening sentence tells the reader what condition the researcher will study, why it is important, and engages the reviewer to read on for the proposed solution. For example, in a proposal on thrombolysis in stroke, instead of a first sentence on all neurologic diseases, it could state the health impact of thrombolysis in stroke patients as a critical problem to solve. A too-broad sentence might be “Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the US.” A reader could imagine any number of topics for the proposed study. A better opener could be “After cardiac arrest, therapeutic cooling after return of spontaneous circulation improves neurologic outcomes.”
At the end of the introductory paragraph, the reader has been introduced to the project and its relation to the agency’s mission, educated with a brief summary of important existing knowledge, and notified to the gap or critical need to be filled. One or two high level sentences on current knowledge is sufficient in order to balance goals of providing enough detail to ground the proposal in the literature yet not become esoteric, jargony, or lengthy. The Specific Aims page should briefly acknowledge major controversies that may subvert the importance of the proposal; further explanations must arrive in later sections, but this page must allay concerns even briefly in order to keep the reader moving forward. This should flow directly into the knowledge gap the researcher hopes to fill. Statements that clearly identify the problem should be used such as “these studies were limited by…,” “no one knows why…” or “a gap remains…” Ideally, the aims will directly address the identified gaps. For instance, a proposal for an intervention might have aims on prevalence, effectiveness, and safety; these concepts would have been highlighted as gaps. When addressing alignment with a funding agency, consider using terminology and language from the funding announcement. In summary, the first paragraph introduces the problem to be solved, educates the reviewer on what is known, identifies the knowledge gap that the planned study will fill, and relates the project to the funding agency mission.
Paragraph 2 describes the rationale for the proposed study. It is here that the researcher reveals the proposed solution to bridge the (previously identified) knowledge gap: a high-level proposal to fill the knowledge gap, why it is the right solution, and why this team is the right one to do it. Briefly describe and justify why this is the proposed approach to the problem, and why this team would be the group to achieve the aims. Assuming the reader is compelled by the significant problem and knowledge gap, why would this be the expected or desired study, and what about this researcher’s expertise, experience, or environment ensure success? The rationale for filling this knowledge gap and for the approach chosen to fill it is critical. Linked to this rationale, the researcher makes a case for him or herself as the person/team to achieve the proposed plan. This can be achieved simply with a brief statement outlining pertinent qualifications, an advantageous opportunity such as “…through the development of a novel…, we now have the unique ability to…,” or “based on our compelling pilot data.”
The rationale paragraph is an ideal location for an overall study objective. This may specifically identify the long-term goal of the research agenda and the specific goals of what the proposed project will accomplish. The objective statement, much like in a manuscript, succinctly outlines what the researcher will successfully accomplish with the proposed study. This objective must be realistic and achievable. A researcher should not propose to “cure cancer,” for example, but perhaps “improve the staging and treatment of resectable lung cancer.” The objective is then linked to a critical need or central hypothesis whose testing will achieve the global objective of the application. Take care that the objective is not to test a hypothesis. Be sure to have a thorough plan for negative and null findings that will be explained in later sections. An ideal hypothesis is one in which any result actually advances the field of inquiry and can be explained in such a way (rather than we learned something, or we were wrong). In terms of critical need, it is especially desirable to have a “burning platform” for the proposed study. It may be urgent because it is timely such as when major health policy adoption hinges on a study result, when a gap is on the critical path to allow an entire field of study to progress, or if there is an advantage for safety and efficacy pending the outcome of the proposed study. Closing this section with a global objective or central hypothesis distills the justification made above to set up the subsequent specific aims. In summary, the rationale conveys why the research is proposed at this time and by the researcher specifically, and what will be possible after the study.
Specific aims are treated as a paragraph although they are generally a list with some type of outline numbering. Taken as a whole, specific aims outline the key steps to fulfill objectives that address a critical need. Aims are clear, achievable, and directly related to the content provided in the preceding paragraphs, with no new terms or “first mentions” in the aims. Specific aims are specific with clarity and have a goal to achieve something. Within each aim, avoid redundant phrases, e.g. “in older male patients with prostate cancer.” Depending on the audience and reader expectations, aims may be written as incomplete sentences starting with action words, e.g. investigate, measure, estimate, implement. For instance, use “measure” rather than “determine whether,” and avoid heavily descriptive verbs such as “correlate, describe, explore, or investigate.” For some agencies it is expected that each aim has an accompanying hypothesis and experiment, or perhaps a short description of an approach with data source and analytic methods. Other agencies expect to see anticipated challenges and proposed solutions. These expectations can be garnered from mentors that have been successful with the funding agency or review panel members. It is common to think of each aim as generating a result that can be written as a manuscript.
Depending on the duration of the planned study, two to four aims are acceptable with three generally being “just right.” Two aims can be considered for grants of short duration or small dollars while four aims may be appropriate for large program grants that must fulfill more objectives. The aims directly reflect the scope of work and can help define whether the study is judged as too ambitious; pilot studies may have fewer aims. Some investigators will call out an aim as “exploratory” and expect a lower standard for feasibility, although we avoid these and recommend only proposing work that can be executed successfully and thus defended. As a matter of grantsmanship, a researcher may or may not conduct exploratory work, but it is risky to propose work that may appear weak in comparison to other aims. Sub-aims (e.g. 1a, 1b, 1c) may organize basic science experiments beneath an aim, which may benefit such a proposal. Sub-aims increase the complexity of the aims page, however, increasing possible confusion and decreasing clarity. Sub-aims may provide a reviewer with additional opportunity to criticize the approach, so they should be considered very carefully.
Avoid “aim dependency” whereby one aim cannot be completed if a prior aim fails. Strategies to avoid interdependence include utilization of separate populations or different approaches. For instance, if one aim is to develop a new assay and a subsequent aim uses the assay for a hypothesis test, then if assay development fails the subsequent study is doomed. An alternative proposal may seek to measure the utilization of the currently used assay, test three alternative methods to detect the condition in question, and pilot the test with the highest sensitivity assay for the condition. In this way, the study will generate knowledge regardless of the success with the new assay. Similarly, one might aim to measure a problem across multiple institutions, determine the best environment for an intervention, and pilot test the intervention in the most controllable of these sites. Table 3 highlights additional “do’s and don’ts” for effective specific aims.
Specific Aims Do’s and Don’ts
DO | DON’T |
---|---|
Write aims early and stay open to revision | State a hypothesis that you cannot test with the proposed methods |
Use active verbs and massive parallelism, no first mentions in aims | Use verbs viewed as “too descriptive” like correlate, describe, explore, investigate |
Consider a figure to illustrates the story, relation between aims | Use vague words and jargon |
Write to non-experts, as compared to approach written to specialists | Propose a “fishing expedition,” not essential to problem at hand or overall hypothesis |
In summary, specific aims should be correlated with the central project goal and hypothesis. They should be conceptual rather than descriptive, flow in a logical sequence, have a clear purpose with a working hypothesis or statement of need, and each aim’s success should be independent of the success of prior aims.
It is a common mistake to overfill the background before the aims, leaving little page space after the aims for anything more than a generic statement of innovation and importance for human health and future studies. This closing Aims page paragraph outlines the expected outcome and highlights the health and scientific impact identified in the first sentence of the page. It is essential to describe in specific ways the proposed project will be of value to the funding agency, to the field of inquiry, and to society. If the proposal includes career development plans then outlining who the researcher will become as a result of the funding is part of the value. This paragraph also closes the loop back to the opening sentence, the impact from filling a gap, and addressing a critical problem. The closing paragraph may only be two or three sentences, but can address innovation and impact. This is also the place to suggest what a specific next study would be that builds on the proposed study. In summary, the last payoff paragraph reorients reviewers to the background and knowledge gap, identifies the innovation, delineates expected project outcomes, summarizes the project’s significance, and allows the reviewer a peek at the importance of a larger research agenda.
Formatting elements, such as bolding, underling, fonts and margins are generally dictated by the funding agency. It is essential to keep the reader in mind by making it as easy on the eyes and as user-friendly as possible. In formatting terms this means that there should be as much white (non-text) space as possible; we recommend writing a complete Aims Page using 12 point font and one-inch margins before reformatting to narrower margins per agency allowances. Writers should be judicious and consistent in using emphasis with bold, underline, and italics. Experienced grant writers advise saving one style of emphasis, e.g. either italics or underline, for resubmissions in order to differentiate new material and telegraph responsiveness to prior critiques. When adding a figure to the Aims page, consider wrapping the text and placing figures on the left so that the font to has a left-justified straight edge. Because some writers prefer straight edges generally they use full justification, but proportional spacing is harder to read on the eyes so we recommend using left justification as another step to keep the reader in mind. Font choice may be dictated by the granting agency, but it is generally accepted that sans serif fonts like Arial are easier to read electronically or on screens, and serif fonts like Times new Roman are easier to read in print. This is generally a preference as electronic submissions and PDF editing means that many reviewers never print paper copies but rather review proposals in electronic formats. We utilize Arial 11 point font with half inch margins for federal proposals.
Effective writing style and story-telling is the next step in developing a persuasive grant application. Writing style is a large topic beyond the scope of this guide, though we will provide a few recommendations that relate to the Aims page. Clarity and concision are key (e.g. use short words when there is an option such as “and” instead of “as well as” or delete unnecessary phrases such as “indeed”).[ 2 ] Write to reader expectations in terms of sentence structure and paragraph linkage. [ 3 ] Use active verbs when possible, use first person (“I will” or “we will” instead of “this study will”) and passive voice (“data were collected”) judiciously and when appropriate (e.g. when you as the researcher are needed in the action such as making choices to defend). Writers should use a topic sentence and then supporting material in a more journalistic style rather than the logical approach of starting broad and ending with the point. Storytelling approaches are highly effective features of persuasive Specific Aims pages. For clinical research proposals, a composite case can bring the human element of the scientific rationale to light in a highly memorable way; clinical translational proposals can also benefit from a human health implication of the science. The hallmarks of excellent scientific writing deserve their own full manuscript discussion, but these basic elements can help the grant writer develop an effective Specific Aims page.
Successful Aims pages can help early stage investigators model their own proposals.[ 1 ] The more you read and review, the better your own Aims pages will become and you will find an approach that works for you; no matter your style, Aims pages will include the recommended background, knowledge gap, proposed solution, and impact elements. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has their own grant writing workshop available through the Grant Writers’ Seminar and Workshops site ( http://www.grantcentral.com ).[ 4 ] The NIH provides writing tips,[ 5 ] others have “demystified” the grant NIH grant application process[ 6 , 7 ] and the Center for Scientific Review has outlined the necessary components of NIH grants.[ 8 ] For grant writers interested in the historical elements behind developing a Specific Aims page and more depth from reviewers’ perspective [ 9 ] The Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) has built an illustrative website with full grant examples ( http://www.saem.org/research )[ 10 ] and webinars ( http://www.saem.org/saem-foundation/events/educational/webinars )[ 11 ] and many additional related resources, include our webinar discussing this topic in detail, where we recommend researchers evaluate Aims pages with a checklist of effective elements ( Table 4 ). In workshops on this subject, participants would use this list to assess their own Aims pages as well as another participant’s page.
Formative Assessment of an Effective Specific Aims Page
Known about the subject |
Knowledge gap(s) |
The problem to solve due to the gap |
Urgent/important about this as a priority problem to solve |
Central hypothesis/overall statement of need |
Why choose this study to address the identified problem |
Team’s qualification and research environment |
Major variables in each aim linked to gap |
Testable hypotheses and planned interpretations for all findings |
Alternative approaches for each aim in case of unexpected trouble |
Expected outcome and key learning from study |
Innovation and impact of aims |
One logical next research step if study is successful |
6 key words for the study |
Project title in 200 characters/spaces |
The Advanced Research Methodology Evaluation and Design (ARMED, http://www.saem.org/education/live-learning/advanced-research-methodology-evaluation-and-design-(armed) [ 12 ] is a year-long program that leverages in-person workshops and webinars to train junior investigators to in research topics. The SAEM Grant Writing Workshop ( http://www.saem.org/annual-meeting/education/workshops/grant-writing-workshop )[ 13 ] occurs at the Annual Meeting; it is a working session that allows investigators to further develop individual Aims pages. Both of these programs have nominal costs and most department Chairs are eager to support junior researchers with these opportunities.
This manuscript provides a recipe for writing an effective Specific Aims page using a simple four paragraph structure, and gave formatting and style recommendations. It is ideal to optimize Aims pages with readers who are educated non-experts who are not unfamiliar with your study as they most closely resemble review panelists.
Dr. Anne Libby, PhD, is Professor Emergency Medicine and Vice Chair for Academic Affairs at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Libby’s research expertise is patient-oriented outcomes research, specifically, the financing and organization of health care systems with a focus on behavioral health. She served 4 years on study section for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Her research and mentored training programs have been funded by federal sources (NIH, AHRQ) and national foundations (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation). She co-founded the Education, Training, and Career Development Core of the Colorado Clinical Translational Sciences Institute, and founded mentoring and mentored research development programs in clinical and outcomes research.
Conflict of Interest: AAM and AML have no conflicts of interest relating to this work.
Funding Disclosure: The contents of this work are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represents the views of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Monte received support from NIH 1 K23 GM110516. Dr. Monte and Dr. Libby are supported by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number ULI TR001082. Contents are the authors’ sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent official NIH views.
You have full access to this open access article
89k Accesses
35 Citations
72 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)
To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.
Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).
In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.
The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect. Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect. Improving Quality: Strategies . Section How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect. Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect. Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect. Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .
For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.
From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.
Figure 1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.
PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records
Fundamental criteria: general research quality.
Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.
All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.
Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.
Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .
It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.
Figure 2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.
Essential elements of a conceptual framework
In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.
The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .
Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:
The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).
Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.
Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.
This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.
Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:
In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.
There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).
Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.
Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.
It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.
Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.
To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.
Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.
Article Google Scholar
Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.
Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.
CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.
Google Scholar
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.
Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445
Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.
Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.
Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.
Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.
Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.
Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.
Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.
Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.
Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15
McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.
Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.
Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.
Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.
Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.
Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.
Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959
Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.
Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.
Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.
Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.
Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.
Download references
Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).
Authors and affiliations.
Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria
Drishti Yadav
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .
Conflict of interest.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0
Download citation
Accepted : 28 August 2021
Published : 18 September 2021
Issue Date : December 2022
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0
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
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Published on October 26, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 21, 2023.
A research question pinpoints exactly what you want to find out in your work. A good research question is essential to guide your research paper , dissertation , or thesis .
All research questions should be:
How to write a research question, what makes a strong research question, using sub-questions to strengthen your main research question, research questions quiz, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research questions.
You can follow these steps to develop a strong research question:
The way you frame your question depends on what your research aims to achieve. The table below shows some examples of how you might formulate questions for different purposes.
Research question formulations | |
---|---|
Describing and exploring | |
Explaining and testing | |
Evaluating and acting | is X |
Example research problem | Example research question(s) |
---|---|
Teachers at the school do not have the skills to recognize or properly guide gifted children in the classroom. | What practical techniques can teachers use to better identify and guide gifted children? |
Young people increasingly engage in the “gig economy,” rather than traditional full-time employment. However, it is unclear why they choose to do so. | What are the main factors influencing young people’s decisions to engage in the gig economy? |
Note that while most research questions can be answered with various types of research , the way you frame your question should help determine your choices.
Discover proofreading & editing
Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them. The criteria below can help you evaluate the strength of your research question.
Criteria | Explanation |
---|---|
Focused on a single topic | Your central research question should work together with your research problem to keep your work focused. If you have multiple questions, they should all clearly tie back to your central aim. |
Answerable using | Your question must be answerable using and/or , or by reading scholarly sources on the to develop your argument. If such data is impossible to access, you likely need to rethink your question. |
Not based on value judgements | Avoid subjective words like , , and . These do not give clear criteria for answering the question. |
Criteria | Explanation |
---|---|
Answerable within practical constraints | Make sure you have enough time and resources to do all research required to answer your question. If it seems you will not be able to gain access to the data you need, consider narrowing down your question to be more specific. |
Uses specific, well-defined concepts | All the terms you use in the research question should have clear meanings. Avoid vague language, jargon, and too-broad ideas. |
Does not demand a conclusive solution, policy, or course of action | Research is about informing, not instructing. Even if your project is focused on a practical problem, it should aim to improve understanding rather than demand a ready-made solution. If ready-made solutions are necessary, consider conducting instead. Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as it is solved. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time. |
Criteria | Explanation |
---|---|
Cannot be answered with or | Closed-ended, / questions are too simple to work as good research questions—they don’t provide enough for robust investigation and discussion. |
Cannot be answered with easily-found facts | If you can answer the question through a single Google search, book, or article, it is probably not complex enough. A good research question requires original data, synthesis of multiple sources, and original interpretation and argumentation prior to providing an answer. |
Criteria | Explanation |
---|---|
Addresses a relevant problem | Your research question should be developed based on initial reading around your . It should focus on addressing a problem or gap in the existing knowledge in your field or discipline. |
Contributes to a timely social or academic debate | The question should aim to contribute to an existing and current debate in your field or in society at large. It should produce knowledge that future researchers or practitioners can later build on. |
Has not already been answered | You don’t have to ask something that nobody has ever thought of before, but your question should have some aspect of originality. For example, you can focus on a specific location, or explore a new angle. |
Chances are that your main research question likely can’t be answered all at once. That’s why sub-questions are important: they allow you to answer your main question in a step-by-step manner.
Good sub-questions should be:
Here are a few examples of descriptive and framing questions:
Keep in mind that sub-questions are by no means mandatory. They should only be asked if you need the findings to answer your main question. If your main question is simple enough to stand on its own, it’s okay to skip the sub-question part. As a rule of thumb, the more complex your subject, the more sub-questions you’ll need.
Try to limit yourself to 4 or 5 sub-questions, maximum. If you feel you need more than this, it may be indication that your main research question is not sufficiently specific. In this case, it’s is better to revisit your problem statement and try to tighten your main question up.
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Methodology
Statistics
Research bias
The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .
A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.
As you cannot possibly read every source related to your topic, it’s important to evaluate sources to assess their relevance. Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth.
This involves:
A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).
A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.
Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .
However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/
Other students also liked, how to define a research problem | ideas & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
Learn how to create an effective discussion guide for qualitative research by following these five steps.
Editor’s note: Joanna Jones is the CEO and founder of InterQ and co-founder of InterQ Learning Labs. This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared under the title “ How to write a discussion guide for qualitative research .”
In qualitative research, the discussion guide is the fundamental document that outlines the questions that the interviewer asks a participant or group of participants. This article focuses on discussion guides that are used in interview-based research, not on platforms (for example, mobile ethnography platforms, bulletin boards or online diaries). Although, keep in mind that the best platform research ends with an in-depth interview or group discussion, so a discussion guide will come after the first phase.
Discussion guides are fundamental to good interviewing. Moderators often have various techniques with how they use guides (some digest the key questions they need to know and skip around, others follow the question outline closely), but most moderators will agree that setting up your questions first is the key to a good interview.
Before diving into the key components every discussion guide has, let me first say that discussion guides are not a script. They’re a guide – and the key to being a good moderator is to know how to let participants go on tangents and when to guide people back to the core questions. Rarely, though, are guides read through verbatim.
There is a lot of pre-work that must happen before writing a discussion guide. This includes understanding the core goals of the research, defining the outputs and aligning the stakeholders. Our process for this stage is to conduct workshops with stakeholders, but everyone has their own methods.
This initial stage is where the researcher will define what I like to call “the essential question.” In other words, if you could only learn one thing from the research, what would it be?
Additionally, you’ll want to clearly label and record the various hypotheses that are being tested. Once you know this – and the team is aligned – you’ll be able to choose the methodology, define the participant criteria and, once everyone has signed off, start on the guide. (Keep in mind this is a general description of qualitative projects and details will differ depending on the specific project goals.)
When a moderator begins a research discussion, the introduction is critical. This is the part where the moderator builds rapport with the participant and sets the scene.
What to include in this stage:
Once the key expectations are covered, it’s then good to add in a sort of icebreaker or non-study related question to get the group members or the individual participant to relax. For example, you can ask people what their dream car is or where they most want to travel. I typically try to tie the ice-breaker question to the study theme.
Discussion guides can be seen as an upside down triangle: Start general at the top and get narrower as you go along.
The next goal is to set the scene by asking general questions about the topic. This phase helps build empathy and slowly invites the participant(s) into the topic. A key component here is that you want the participants to define and name their perceptions of the category before you name it. This is a great opportunity to add in projective techniques. A favorite one that I typically do at this stage – if I’m leading groups – is an association exercise. I’ll write down a few words related to the topic on a board and have everyone write down all the associations they have with the category on sticky notes. They first write it down individually, so as not to bias each other – and then we collect the stickies and discuss as a group. This brings everyone in and sets the tone. It also gives the moderator context and helps them be grounded in the category knowledge or opinions.
Once participants have defined the category and the researcher has set the scene, the discussion guide then moves into the next section: the specifics. If the study is a user test, this is where the moderator has the participant move through the product design. If it’s a focus group, the researcher will start to hone-in on the essential question that was defined at the outset of the study. This is where moderator training is so crucial. Good moderators know how to probe, guide and ask non-leading questions – while still capturing how people think, feel and do. Projective techniques and exercises are also commonly used in this phase.
As the interview winds down, this is where the researcher has a chance to share the brand name to test perceptions. If it’s a completely blind study, this last phase of the discussion guide is to close the loop. For example, how would the participant rate the concepts? Where would the participant expect to purchase the product? What type of media outlets does the participant pay attention to (to test brand placement)? How is the decision-making done at an organization (to understand the buying process)? The closing section is crucial as it allows the moderator to capture more direct responses without leading the participant, since the categories and initial perceptions/ideas were captured organically – with the participant defining the terms – in the very beginning of the interview.
To close, expect to spend five to eight hours developing your discussion guide. How the questions are set up, the order of the questions and, super important – the exercises included in the interview – require creativity and thought to put together.
Once the guide is together, practice and know it well – this will help you skip around if the participant brings up topics before you get to them. When appropriate, be able to skip around as well as probe on ideas that are the most pertinent to the study’s objectives.
Managing group discussions: How to handle opinion leaders Related Categories: Research Industry, Focus Group-Moderator Training, Focus Group-Moderating Research Industry, Focus Group-Moderator Training, Focus Group-Moderating, Focus Groups, Public Opinion Studies
The benefits and limitations of intercept interviews Related Categories: Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Qualitative Research Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Qualitative Research, Mall Interviewing, On-site Interviewing, Recruiting-Qualitative
Yasna: AI assistant for interviewing people, regardless of the scale Related Categories: Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Qualitative Research Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Qualitative Research, Artificial Intelligence / AI
How friendship pairs can help marketing researchers Related Categories: Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Focus Group-Moderating, Qualitative Research Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Focus Group-Moderating, Qualitative Research, Advertising Effectiveness, Audience Research
Research Aims: Examples. True to the name, research aims usually start with the wording "this research aims to…", "this research seeks to…", and so on. For example: "This research aims to explore employee experiences of digital transformation in retail HR.". "This study sets out to assess the interaction between student ...
answer not only the How but also the Why for each aim. You may be tempted to skip this. Do so at your own peril! This formula is proven to work. "Aim #: To X we will Y." - I've used this exact format on the last 5 funded proposals for ALL of my aims. It forces you to clearly state WHY you will do the aim (X) and HOW you will do it (Y).
Step 1: Decide on a general aim. Your research aim should reflect your research problem and should be relatively broad. Example: Research aim To assess the safety features and response times of self-driving cars. Step 2: Decide on specific objectives. Break down your aim into a limited number of steps that will help you resolve your research ...
Write specific aims that test a single, overarching hypothesis, and not individual aims connected to their own hypotheses. Note: Depending on the grant you are seeking, this rule may not be possible or desirable. For example, if you are applying for an R01 grant in health services/outcomes research, the typical grant in this area has a data collection project at its core that often addresses ...
Although qualitative research studies can and often do change and develop over the course of data collection, it is important to have a good idea of what the aims and goals of your study are at the outset and a good plan of how to achieve those aims and goals. Chapter 2 provides a road map of the process.
While many books and articles guide various qualitative research methods and analyses, there is currently no concise resource that explains and differentiates among the most common qualitative approaches. We believe novice qualitative researchers, students planning the design of a qualitative study or taking an introductory qualitative research course, and faculty teaching such courses can ...
You don't want to be too deep into your research plan before realizing the set of participants you recruited aren't the right people for answering the questions you want to answer with your research. I highly recommend writing your qualitative research objective first, and socializing it before beginning any study. Here's a quick guide:
A-85). Successful writing requires a writer to pay quiet diligent attention to the construction of the genre they are working in. Each genre has its own sense of verisimilitude—the bearing of truth. Each places different constraints on the writer and has different goals, forms, and structure.
owning a bed net), the aims and methods of qualitative research can seem imprecise. Common criticisms include: samples are small and not necessarily representative of the broader ... identify whether the specific research question you want to answer is best answered by a quantitative or a qualitative approach. Often, there are several ...
Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions (phenomenological research questions), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process (grounded theory questions), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes (qualitative case study ...
Abstract. This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions ...
Qualitative research methodology is not a single method, but instead offers a variety of different choices to researchers, according to specific parameters of topic, research question, participants, and settings. The method is the way you carry out your research within the paradigm of quantitative or qualitative research.
A: Research aims are statements that reflect the broad goal(s) of the study and outline the general direction of the research. They are not specific but clearly define the focus of the study. Example: This research aims to explore employee experiences of digital transformation in retail HR. Research objectives focus on the action to be taken to ...
Research aims are relatively broad; research objectives are specific. Research aims focus on a project's long-term outcomes; research objectives focus on its immediate, short-term outcomes. A research aim can be written in a single sentence or short paragraph; research objectives should be written as a numbered list. How to Write Aims and ...
Like all academic texts, writing up a thematic analysis requires an introduction to establish our research question, aims and approach. We should also include a methodology section, describing how we collected the data (e.g. through semi-structured interviews or open-ended survey questions ) and explaining how we conducted the thematic analysis ...
Abstract. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition, presents a comprehensive retrospective and prospective review of the field of qualitative research. Original, accessible chapters written by interdisciplinary leaders in the field make this a critical reference work. Filled with robust examples from real-world research ...
The purpose statement is the overall objective or intent of the study. In some projects it is called the "study aim.". It is the most important statement in your qualitative study. It is a statement that conveys the essence of a project. A central question is a single general question that reframes the purpose into a specific question.
Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research. Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research, which involves collecting and ...
Grant writing starts with the iterative development of a Specific Aims page. The Aims page serves as a concept sheet with project milestones, hypotheses, and the most important elements of the approach.[] This page also serves as a master plan for the research proposal and ideally engages the reader as an advocate during review.
This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then ...
Example 1. 1. 10. SPECIFIC AIMS. More than 14% of US households are food insecure, or at risk of going hungry because of the inability to afford food. About 21% of households with children are affected, as are more than a quarter of Latino and African-American households. One in eight US households is now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition ...
A good research question is essential to guide your research paper, dissertation, or thesis. All research questions should be: Focused on a single problem or issue. Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources. Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints. Specific enough to answer thoroughly.
This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared under the title "How to write a discussion guide for qualitative research." In qualitative research, the discussion guide is the fundamental document that outlines the questions that the interviewer asks a participant or group of participants. This article focuses on ...
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
In addition, his problem-solving skills might also be lacking in terms of considering other solutions to the problem, such as placing the jar in a different location, or using a different method to keep the ants away. For more information problem solving skills, click the link below. brainly.ph/question/16734053. #SPJ6
snehasishghosh61. Problem-solving is a cognitive process that involves identifying, analyzing, and finding solutions to problems or challenges. It is a valuable skill that can be applied in various areas of life, such as academics, work, and personal situations. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of the problem-solving process:
Rommel, a five-year-old boy, puts a label "salt" into a jar of sugar. Actually, he has been observing it almost everyday because many ants are attacking the jar. 1. Why do you think Rommel has labeled the jar of sugar "salt"? 2. Did he use intuitive or strategic way of thinking? Why? 3. What is lacking in his problem-solving skill?
Rommel, a five-year-old boy, puts a label "salt" into a jar of sugar. Actually, he has been observing it almost everyday because many ants are attacking the jar. 1. Why do you think Rommel has labeled the jar of sugar "salt"? 2. Did he use intuitive or strategic way of thinking? Why? 3. What is lacking in his problem-solving skill?
The combination of these skills impacted the level of confidence direct reports had in achieving their organizations' strategic goals. Problem Solving is an Essential Skill. In another study, over 1.5 million raters were asked to select the top 4 most important competencies based on 19 different competencies.
Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue. The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything ...
Problem-solving skills are the ability to identify problems, brainstorm and analyze answers, and implement the best solutions. An employee with good problem-solving skills is both a self-starter and a collaborative teammate; they are proactive in understanding the root of a problem and work with others to consider a wide range of solutions ...
Identify what is lacking in Rommel's problem-solving skills Rommel's problem-solving skills are lacking in several areas: - Understanding of cause and effect: Rommel does not seem to understand that the label on the jar will not change the ants' behavior. - Knowledge: He may not have enough knowledge about ants and what attracts them.
General Problem-Solving Tools. When you understand the problem in front of you, you're ready to start solving it. With your definition to guide you, you can generate several possible solutions, choose the best one, then put it into action. That's the four-step approach at the heart of good problem solving. There are various problem-solving ...
Problem solving requires two distinct types of mental skill, analytical and creative. Analytical or logical thinking includes skills such as ordering, comparing, contrasting, evaluating and selecting. ... Creative thinking is a divergent process, using the imagination to create a large range of ideas for solutions.
The major part of problem solving skill are explained below.. In order to find the ways, we must know the definition of problem solving. The term problem solving is defined as the act of defining a problem; determining the cause of the problem identifying, prioritizing, and selecting alternatives for a solution and implementing a solution. Therefore, the major skills included in the problem ...
Rommel , a five year-old boy, put a label "Salt" into a jar of sugar. Actually, he has been observing it almost every day because many ants are invading the jar. 1. Why do you think Rommel has labelled the jar of sugar instead of "SALT"? 2. What thinking did he use? Why? 3. What is lacking in his problem-solving? 4.
Strategic Analysis Strategic Analysis is a process of examining and identifying a problem/threat using rational thinking, conceptualizing with systematic and step-by-step process. It refers to a system or method that requires deliberate, abstract, and effortful thinking that breaks down a complex problem into parts.
Explain about the problem solving skill Get the answers you need, now!
Problem solving skills are skills you have that help you to think by yourself and solve problems in a smart and cognitive way. These skills help in your daily life, whether its with your gf or on the street.
TNCS PREP W2. advertisement. Directions: Examine the picture below. Write your reasons and answer to the questions. provided on your notebook. Rommel, a five-year-old boy, puts a label "salt" into a jar of sugar. Actually, he has been. observing it almost everyday because many ants are attacking the jar. •.
Although problem-solving is often identified as its own separate skill, there are other related skills that contribute to this ability. Some key problem-solving skills include: Active listening. Analysis. Research. Creativity. Communication. Dependability. Decision making.
There are lacking steps on his problem solving because the way I see it he directly goes for solution without knowing or identifying the problem which should... 1. Rommel has labelled the jar of sugar accidentally since they look similar from each other and you couldn't possibly tell their difference... - he labeled the jar of sugar as a ...
1. fixing things:it helps in fixing things such as activities problem hardware etc . 2. managing risks: it helps in understanding trends and past experience therefore managing and reducing risks. 3. improve performance: it helps quickly in improving performance. 4. seize new opportunities : it is not just reactive but proactive. Explanation:
What are problem solving skills? Problem-solving is a complex skill. It involves critical thinking, decision-making, creativity, and information processing. Effective problem-solvers use a systematic approach that allows them to break down difficult problems into smaller, more manageable parts.
This skill allows them to create tailored nutrition plans for patients with various health concerns, like diabetes or heart disease. By effectively addressing and solving dietary challenges, dietitians play a crucial role in promoting health and preventing diseases. Learn more about The importance of problem-solving skills for dietitians here: