dissertation abstracts qualitative research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

Published on February 28, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

An abstract is a short summary of a longer work (such as a thesis ,  dissertation or research paper ). The abstract concisely reports the aims and outcomes of your research, so that readers know exactly what your paper is about.

Although the structure may vary slightly depending on your discipline, your abstract should describe the purpose of your work, the methods you’ve used, and the conclusions you’ve drawn.

One common way to structure your abstract is to use the IMRaD structure. This stands for:

• Introduction

Abstracts are usually around 100–300 words, but there’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check the relevant requirements.

In a dissertation or thesis , include the abstract on a separate page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Abstract example, when to write an abstract, step 1: introduction, step 2: methods, step 3: results, step 4: discussion, tips for writing an abstract, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about abstracts.

Hover over the different parts of the abstract to see how it is constructed.

This paper examines the role of silent movies as a mode of shared experience in the US during the early twentieth century. At this time, high immigration rates resulted in a significant percentage of non-English-speaking citizens. These immigrants faced numerous economic and social obstacles, including exclusion from public entertainment and modes of discourse (newspapers, theater, radio).

Incorporating evidence from reviews, personal correspondence, and diaries, this study demonstrates that silent films were an affordable and inclusive source of entertainment. It argues for the accessible economic and representational nature of early cinema. These concerns are particularly evident in the low price of admission and in the democratic nature of the actors’ exaggerated gestures, which allowed the plots and action to be easily grasped by a diverse audience despite language barriers.

Keywords: silent movies, immigration, public discourse, entertainment, early cinema, language barriers.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

You will almost always have to include an abstract when:

• Completing a thesis or dissertation
• Submitting a research paper to an academic journal
• Writing a book or research proposal
• Applying for research grants

It’s easiest to write your abstract last, right before the proofreading stage, because it’s a summary of the work you’ve already done. Your abstract should:

• Be a self-contained text, not an excerpt from your paper
• Be fully understandable on its own
• Reflect the structure of your larger work

Start by clearly defining the purpose of your research. What practical or theoretical problem does the research respond to, or what research question did you aim to answer?

You can include some brief context on the social or academic relevance of your dissertation topic , but don’t go into detailed background information. If your abstract uses specialized terms that would be unfamiliar to the average academic reader or that have various different meanings, give a concise definition.

After identifying the problem, state the objective of your research. Use verbs like “investigate,” “test,” “analyze,” or “evaluate” to describe exactly what you set out to do.

This part of the abstract can be written in the present or past simple tense  but should never refer to the future, as the research is already complete.

• This study will investigate the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.
• This study investigates the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.

Next, indicate the research methods that you used to answer your question. This part should be a straightforward description of what you did in one or two sentences. It is usually written in the past simple tense, as it refers to completed actions.

• Structured interviews will be conducted with 25 participants.
• Structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants.

Don’t evaluate validity or obstacles here — the goal is not to give an account of the methodology’s strengths and weaknesses, but to give the reader a quick insight into the overall approach and procedures you used.

Next, summarize the main research results . This part of the abstract can be in the present or past simple tense.

• Our analysis has shown a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis shows a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis showed a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.

Depending on how long and complex your research is, you may not be able to include all results here. Try to highlight only the most important findings that will allow the reader to understand your conclusions.

Finally, you should discuss the main conclusions of your research : what is your answer to the problem or question? The reader should finish with a clear understanding of the central point that your research has proved or argued. Conclusions are usually written in the present simple tense.

• We concluded that coffee consumption increases productivity.
• We conclude that coffee consumption increases productivity.

If there are important limitations to your research (for example, related to your sample size or methods), you should mention them briefly in the abstract. This allows the reader to accurately assess the credibility and generalizability of your research.

If your aim was to solve a practical problem, your discussion might include recommendations for implementation. If relevant, you can briefly make suggestions for further research.

If your paper will be published, you might have to add a list of keywords at the end of the abstract. These keywords should reference the most important elements of the research to help potential readers find your paper during their own literature searches.

Be aware that some publication manuals, such as APA Style , have specific formatting requirements for these keywords.

It can be a real challenge to condense your whole work into just a couple of hundred words, but the abstract will be the first (and sometimes only) part that people read, so it’s important to get it right. These strategies can help you get started.

Read other abstracts

The best way to learn the conventions of writing an abstract in your discipline is to read other people’s. You probably already read lots of journal article abstracts while conducting your literature review —try using them as a framework for structure and style.

You can also find lots of dissertation abstract examples in thesis and dissertation databases .

Reverse outline

Not all abstracts will contain precisely the same elements. For longer works, you can write your abstract through a process of reverse outlining.

For each chapter or section, list keywords and draft one to two sentences that summarize the central point or argument. This will give you a framework of your abstract’s structure. Next, revise the sentences to make connections and show how the argument develops.

Write clearly and concisely

A good abstract is short but impactful, so make sure every word counts. Each sentence should clearly communicate one main point.

To keep your abstract or summary short and clear:

• Avoid passive sentences: Passive constructions are often unnecessarily long. You can easily make them shorter and clearer by using the active voice.
• Avoid long sentences: Substitute longer expressions for concise expressions or single words (e.g., “In order to” for “To”).
• Avoid obscure jargon: The abstract should be understandable to readers who are not familiar with your topic.
• Avoid repetition and filler words: Replace nouns with pronouns when possible and eliminate unnecessary words.
• Avoid detailed descriptions: An abstract is not expected to provide detailed definitions, background information, or discussions of other scholars’ work. Instead, include this information in the body of your thesis or paper.

If you’re struggling to edit down to the required length, you can get help from expert editors with Scribbr’s professional proofreading services or use the paraphrasing tool .

Check your formatting

If you are writing a thesis or dissertation or submitting to a journal, there are often specific formatting requirements for the abstract—make sure to check the guidelines and format your work correctly. For APA research papers you can follow the APA abstract format .

Checklist: Abstract

The word count is within the required length, or a maximum of one page.

The abstract appears after the title page and acknowledgements and before the table of contents .

I have clearly stated my research problem and objectives.

I have briefly described my methodology .

I have summarized the most important results .

I have stated my main conclusions .

I have mentioned any important limitations and recommendations.

The abstract can be understood by someone without prior knowledge of the topic.

You've written a great abstract! Use the other checklists to continue improving your thesis or dissertation.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 200–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

The abstract appears on its own page in the thesis or dissertation , after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, July 18). How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/abstract/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction, shorten your abstract or summary, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "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”

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

Qualitative research methods in medical dissertations: an observational methodological study on prevalence and reporting quality of dissertation abstracts in a German university

Charlotte ullrich.

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Heidelberg Hospital, INF 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Anna Stürmlinger

Michel wensing, associated data.

The data of the repository databank is semi-public and can be accessed from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. A data extraction table is available in App. 2.Competing interests and funding: We have no conflicts of interest to disclose and no funding to report.

Qualitative methods offer a unique contribution to health research. Academic dissertations in the medical field provide an opportunity to explore research practice. Our aim was to assess the use of qualitative methods in dissertations in the medical field.

By means of a methodological observational study, an analysis of all academic medical dissertations’ abstracts between 1998 and 2018 in a repository databank of a large medical university faculty in Germany was performed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.). All abstracts including “qualitativ*” were screened for studies using qualitative research methods. Data were extracted from abstracts using a category grid considering a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology). Thereby reporting quality was assessed.

In total, 103 abstracts of medical dissertations between 1998 and 2018 (1.4% of N  = 7619) were included, 60 of MD dissertations and 43 of medical sciences dissertations. Half of the abstracts ( n  = 51) referred to dissertations submitted since 2014. Most abstracts related to public health/hygiene ( n  = 27) and general practice ( n  = 26), followed by medical psychology ( n  = 19). About half of the studies ( n  = 47) used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half ( n  = 56) used mixed methods. For data collection, primarily individual interviews were used ( n  = 80), followed by group interviews ( n  = 33) and direct observation ( n  = 11). Patients ( n  = 36), physicians ( n  = 36) and healthcare professionals ( n  = 17) were the most frequent research participants. Incomplete reporting of participants and data analysis was common ( n  = 67). Nearly half of the abstracts ( n  = 46) lacked information on how data was analysed, most of the remaining ( n  = 43) used some form of content analysis. In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants, sample size,; data collection and analysis method).

A small number of academic dissertations used qualitative research methods. About a third of these reported all key aspects of the methods used in the abstracts. Further research on the quality of choice and reporting of methods for qualitative research in dissertations is recommended.

Qualitative research methods offer a unique contribution to health research, particular for exploration of the experiences of patients, healthcare professionals and others [ 1 – 5 ]. While (general) epidemiology primarily addresses health and healthcare in populations and clinical research concentrates on medical interventions and health prognosis, qualitative research methods focus on different actors’ perspectives, experiences and behaviours in health-related contexts. Qualitative research entails a broad spectrum of methods of data conduction and data analysis: individual interviews illuminate individual perceptions [ 6 ], group interviews deliver insights into shared norms and opinions [ 7 ], direct observations facilitate understandings of behaviours in healthcare practice [ 8 – 10 ] and documents can offer insights into discourses and self-representations [ 11 ]. For data analysis, methods combining inductive and deductive steps are most suitable for exploratory research questions utilizing existing results, theories and concepts [ 12 ]. Given these prospects, little is known on the practice of applying qualitative research methods, especially concerning medicine.

In dissertations, a foundation for future scientific work is laid; therefore, guidance and rigour are of special importance [ 13 ]. Dissertations in medical departments provide a good opportunity to explore research practices of students and young academics. In Germany, about 60% of all graduating medical students complete an academic dissertation [ 14 ], which they usually finish parallel to medical school within a full-time equivalent of about a year [ 15 – 18 ]. As a by-product, medical doctoral students are increasingly among the authors of published research, holding first-authorship in about 25% [ 18 – 20 ].

In Germany, basic scientific training is a required part of the medical curriculum and recent policies put even more emphasis on the development of scientific competencies [ 15 , 21 , 22 ]. National regulations specify scientific competencies giving explicit recommendations for quantitative methods. Medical students have rarely received training in qualitative methods. However, health care professions and qualitative methods share a perspective directed to practice and interactions. Interviews and observations are already commonly used as clinical and diagnostic tools.

In addition to the doctoral degrees for medical and dental graduates (Doctor medicinae (dentariae), Dr. med. (dent.)), students with other disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. natural scientists, psychologists and social scientists) complete dissertations at medical faculties in Germany (often labelled Doctor scientiarum humanarum, Dr. sc. hum. or Doctor rerum medicarum, Dr. rer. medic.). Although regulations differ slightly, the degrees are usually situated within and regulated by the same institutional culture and context (e.g. faculty, department, supervision and aspired publications).

The aim of this study was to understand the current practice of applying qualitative research methods helping identify gaps in reporting and need for guidance. By means of a methodological study – a subtype of observational studies that evaluates the design, analysis of reporting of other research-related reports [ 23 ] – we investigated volume and variety of the use of qualitative research methods in dissertations at a German medical faculty. Hereby we wanted to inform methodological advances to health research and outline implications for medical education in scientific competencies training.

Search strategy

Dissertations in the medical field were retrospectively assessed: In a document analysis, all dissertation abstracts at one medical faculty were reviewed. This faculty was chosen as it is one of the oldest and largest medical faculties in Germany, with a strong research tradition and a high dissertation rate among graduating students. All abstracts from 01/01/1998 to 31/12/2018, which were publicly available in the repository databank of the university, were reviewed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.) written in German or English. All types of studies using qualitative research methods, all types of human participants, all types of interventions and all types of measures were eligible. We focused on abstracts, because full text dissertations are not publicly available and are helpful to get an overview of a number of method-related issues. Although serving as a proxy, abstracts should provide a sufficient summary of the dissertation, including crucial information on study design, independently from the full text. In the databank, relevant documents had to be labelled a) “abstract of a medical dissertation” (referring to both degree types). To further identify dissertations using qualitative methods b) the search term “qualitativ*” was used as an inclusion criterium.

Selection and data extraction

All identified abstracts were pre-screened independently by two researchers (AS, LS) and then reviewed by the main research team (KK, AS, CU) excluding abstracts using “qualitativ*” only in respect to non-methods-related issues (e.g. quality of life). Data on a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology) (see App. 2) was then extracted independently by two team members (AS, LS) and crossed-checked (KK, CU). Data extraction was initially guided by two widely used reporting guidelines for qualitative health research articles [ 24 , 25 ] and adapted to reflect the abstract format: Abstracts provided comparable information on the set-up of study design and sample. Reporting of results was not assessed due to heterogeneity and briefness. Data extraction forms were piloted and adjusted to inductive findings. Disagreements were discussed, assessed and solved by consensus by the main research team (KK, AS, CU). Extracted data were analysed and reported as absolute and relative frequencies. As all abstracts were available, no further data was obtained from authors.

Search results

Out of a total of 7619 dissertation abstracts, 296 dissertations were initially identified. Of these, 173 abstracts were excluded from the study as “qualitativ*” in these abstracts did not refer to the research method. Additionally, 20 abstracts (12 medicine, 8 medical science) were not further included in the analysis due to an ambiguous and inconclusive use of the label “qualitative methods” and/or restricted comparability with the otherwise pre-dominant interview-based study designs: a) a qualitative research design was stated, but no further information on the approach was given ( n  = 7), b) no explicit distinction was made between qualitative research design and a clinical diagnostic approach ( n  = 4), c) the qualitative approach comprised of additional free text answers in written questionnaires only ( n  = 6), and d) only document analysis or observation was used ( n  = 3). In total, 103 abstracts (1.4% of 7619) were included in the analysis.

Low but increasing use

Since 1998, the number of dissertations applying qualitative methods has continually increased while the total number of dissertations remained stable (between n  = 314 in 2006 and n  = 410 in 1999 and 2008, M (1998–2018) = 362.8, SD = 26.1) (Fig.  1 ). Before 2005 there was yearly not more than one dissertation that used qualitative methods. Since then, the number has steadily raised to more than 10 dissertations per year, equivalent to an increase from 0.28% in 1998 to 3.42% in 2018 of all listed dissertation abstracts per year.

Number of all dissertations and dissertations using qualitative methods per year between 1998 and 2018

General characteristics

Abstracts nearly equally referred to dissertations leading to an MD degree (Dr. med. n  = 57, Dr. med. Dent. n  = 3) and medical science degree (Dr. sc. hum. n  = 43), respectively. The included dissertation abstracts were based in 12 different sub-specialties , most in general practice ( n  = 26), in public health and hygiene ( n  = 27) and medical psychology ( n  = 19); the Dr. med. (dent.) abstracts having a higher share in general practice ( n  = 21) and the Dr. sc. hum. abstracts in public health/hygiene ( n  = 16) (s. Table  1 ).

Usage of qualitative research design in dissertations at a medical faculty

Most abstracts followed at least roughly the common structure of background, methods, results and conclusion. The length of the abstracts varied between less than one and more than three pages, with most abstracts being one to two pages long; 77 abstracts were written in German and 26 in English.

Study design

About half of the studies used qualitative research methods exclusively ( n  = 47; 60% of Dr. med. (dent.) abstracts, 26% of Dr. sc. hum. abstracts), the other half mixed methods ( n  = 56; 40% of Dr. med. (dent.) abstracts, 74% of Dr. sc. hum. abstracts; Table ​ Table1). 1 ). Individual interviews were the most common form of data collection ( n  = 80), followed by group interviews ( n  = 33) and observation ( n  = 11). In total, 23 abstracts indicated the use of a combination of different qualitative methods of data conduction, all of these included individual interviews. For documentation/recording, when reported ( n  = 37), audio recording was used in most cases ( n  = 3).

Little difference regarding method of data conduction were found between pure qualitative and mixed-methods designs. Mixed methods studies rather included physicians ( n  = 21) and used predominantly general content analysis ( n  = 14), when reported; whereas qualitative studies rather included patients ( n  = 28) and used predominantly both content analysis ( n  = 14) and content analysis following Mayring ( n  = 12). Overall incomplete reporting was more common in mixed-method studies ( n  = 41) than qualitative studies ( n  = 26, 55.3%) (see App. 2).

Sample size varied widely: Overall, 67 abstracts provided a sample size. Of those, a median number of 29 people (min-max: 2–136) participated in individual and group interviews. Only in Dr. sc. hum. dissertations using mixed methods, lower median sample sizes were reported for the qualitative part (Md = 22, min-max: 6–110; n  = 17) compared to dissertations using qualitative methods only (medical science ( n  = 7): Md = 31, min-max: 16–50; MD ( n  = 29): Md = 29, min-max: 7–136) and Dr. med. (dent.) dissertations with mixed methods (Md = 30, min-max: 2–62; n  = 14). In individual interviews, when sample size was reported ( n  = 55, 69% of 80), it distributed roughly equally in the ranges of 1–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–50 and above 50 (Md = 25; min-max: 2–110). For the 33 dissertations using group interviews, the number of groups is given in 20 abstracts, the number of participants in 15 abstracts. Between 1 and 24 group interviews were conducted with a median total of 24 participants (min-max: 2–65) (see Table ​ Table1 1 ).

Patients ( n  = 36) and physicians ( n  = 36) were the overall most frequent research participants , followed by other health care professionals ( n  = 17), students ( n  = 11) and relatives of patients ( n  = 7). Other participants ( n  = 16) included: representatives of self-help organizations and other experts, educators such as teachers and policy makers. In 33% ( n  = 31) of the abstracts, more than one participant group was included, 6.8% ( n  = 7) did not specify research participants. While MD dissertations predominantly included physicians ( n  = 27) and patients ( n  = 19), Dr. sc. hum. dissertations included mostly patients ( n  = 17) and other participants ( n  = 10).

Data analysis

For data analysis, if reported ( n  = 57), content analyses were the most common used method ( n  = 42), including the highly deductive approach formulated by Mayring [ 26 ] ( n  = 16), mostly used in MD dissertations ( n  = 14). Among other reported methods ( n  = 15), grounded theory ( n  = 5) was the most common approach; rarely mentioned methods include framework analysis and non-specific analysis combining inductive and deductive approaches. Forty-six abstracts did not provide information on the analysis method used (38.3% of MD abstracts, 53% of medical science abstracts). If reported ( n  = 24), ATLAS.ti ( n  = 14), MAXQDA ( n  = 3) and NVivo ( n  = 3) were mentioned most frequently as qualitative data analysis programs.

In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants: sample size, characteristics, i.e. healthcare professional/patient; data collection and analysis method). Thus, 58% ( n  = 35) of MD dissertation abstracts and 74% ( n  = 32) of Dr. sc. hum. dissertation abstracts had at least one missing information.

The results show a low but increasing use of qualitative research methods in medical dissertations. Abstracts nearly equally referred to dissertations leading to an MD degree and medical science doctorate respectively; half of which were submitted since 2011. Qualitative methods were used in several departments, most frequently in those for general practice, public health and medical psychology mirroring an already known affinity between the objective of certain medical disciplines and perspective qualitative methods [ 27 , 28 ].

About half of the studies used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half mixed methods: While some differences were found, due to short format and sparse information within the abstract a strict differentiation between qualitative approaches alone and combined quantitative and qualitative designs was not made. Little difference according to degree type was observed. This points to a strong shared dissertation culture, that balances and conceals differences in academic training between medical students and graduates from other, quite diverse, disciplines (e.g. from humanities, natural and social sciences) pursuing a doctorate at a medical faculty.

Limited variety in methods used

The results show a strong preference for certain methods in data conduction, research participants and data analysis: Individual and group interviews were predominant as well as content analysis, especially Mayring’s deductive approach. All in all, a limited use of the broad spectrum of qualitative research methods can be observed. Interviews are important to gain insights on actors’ perspective [ 6 ]; however, they have limited information value when it comes to actual processes and practice of health care. To investigates those, additional direct observation would be suitable [ 8 , 9 ]. In group interviews shared norms and opions can be observed, they are not suitable to capture individual perspectices. Group interviews go along with higher time and efforts regarding scheduling, interview guidance and data analysis [ 7 ]. Within the dissertations, documents are rarely used as data within the dissertations, but could be useful readily available documents.

Included research participants were mostly patients and physicians. This might be due to the research questions posed or the availability of participants. However, to reflect the complexity of health care a higher diversity of research questions, expanding participants (e.g. other health care professionals and caregivers) and based on a thorough knowledge of available methods, including qualitative approaches, might be needed.

As for methods of analysis, the results show a predominant use of a form of content analysis, with a strong affinity to quantitative analysis often limited to description forgoing in-depth analysis. As qualitative methods belong to the interpretative paradigm, most qualitative methodologies emphasize inductive analyses (e.g. Grounded Theory) and/or a combination of induction and deduction [ 12 , 29 ]. By using primarily descriptive content analysis the full potential of qualitative research and depth of the data to gain new a insights are thus neglected. Since knowledge about and application of qualitative methods are not part of the medical curriculum, doctoral students lack training in using qualitative methods and grasping the possibilities these methods convey for in-depth original knowledge.

Incomplete reporting

One fundamental principle of good research practice is accurate reporting. For empirical research, reporting on research design and methods is crucial to ensure comparability and reflect reach of research results. Within medicine and other health sciences, while debated [ 30 ], reporting guidelines are increasingly used to guarantee a basic standard. While qualitative research designs differ from clinical and quantitative designs regarding theoretical and methodological background, study aims and research process, rigorous reporting is a shared standard: this includes reporting on data conduction, sampling, participants and data analysis (e.g. COREQ [ 24 ]).

In our study, incomplete reporting regarding research design and methods was common. Especially, information on methods of data analysis was missing in about half of the abstracts reflecting the limited awareness of the plethora of qualitative analysis methods. Additionally, a third of the abstracts did not provide information on sample size. Although the importance of a “sufficient” sample size is controversially discussed, identifying the sources and putting their contributions into perspective is a paramount characteristic of qualitative research [ 31 – 33 ]. All in all, incomplete reporting was common ( n  = 67). Additionally, out of 123 initially identified abstracts, 20 had to be excluded from the analysis as comparability was not given mainly due to the inconclusive use of the term qualitative methods.

Several issues should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. As a case study at one large faculty, which has a strong research orientation, the generalizability of the findings is uncertain. It seems unlikely that the quality of reporting is better in other medical faculties in Germany, but the prevalence of using qualitative methods might be higher. Character and role of the abstracts might not be as apparent as in journal papers, as they serve as a summary of the dissertation and are listed within the online repository databank only. The relation of reporting quality of those abstracts and the full text dissertation or even publication is unknown. Presentation of results was not assessed as information in abstracts were brief and heterogenous. Additionally, insights are limited by the structure of the repository databank itself, i.e. sub-disciplines are combined that sometimes cover distinct research fields or did evolve as separate specialties. All in all, however, the results mirror the critique on the lack of scientific training in medical education [ 17 , 22 , 34 , 35 ] and the want of sufficient reporting in medicine and health science, irrespective of study design [ 36 ].

While recent policies put a strong emphasis on strengthening scientific competences in medical education in Germany [ 15 , 21 , 22 ], especially MD dissertations are only in some degree comparable to dissertation thesis of other disciplines and medical dissertations internationally: In Germany, about 60% of all graduating medical students complete an academic dissertation [ 14 ], which they usually finish parallel to medical school within a full-time equivalent of about a year [ 15 – 18 ]. Graduate programs that exclusively dedicate 1 year for pursuing a dissertation are still discussed as innovative [ 35 ]. Additionally, the expertise of supervisors was not assessed. In a recent opinion paper, Malterud et al. [ 37 ] called for supervisors and dissertation committees holding corresponding methodological skills and experience as well as an academic consensus regarding scientific rigour to ensure high quality theses using qualitative methods. Missing standards in supervision and reporting might have led to the observed results in our study.

Qualitative research methods offer a unique scientific benefit to health care, including medicine. Our results show that within dissertation research, the number of dissertations applying qualitative methods has continually increased mirroring an overall trend in health research. To improve reach and results, a broader spectrum of qualitative methods should be considered when selecting research designs, including e.g. (direct) observation, document and analysis strategies, that combine inductive and deductive approaches. Same holds true for including a more diverse body of research participants. More broadly, reporting and academic practice should be improved.

Reporting guidelines can not only help to improve the quality of reporting but also be used as a tool to supervising graduate students steps commonly associated with qualitative research methods. So far, however, reporting guidelines mainly target full and/or published papers. Still, some reporting guidelines for abstracts are already available [ 38 – 41 ], that could be adapted for dissertation research in health science.

In academic practice, skilled supervision alongside transparent and method-appropriate criteria are the precondition for confident and courageous dissertation research that increases understanding and challenges existing knowledge of health care research. Educational programs strengthening research and reporting skills – within and beyond qualitative methods – should be implemented into medical education more profoundly, at the latest in doctoral training.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Laura Svensson for assisting in reviewing the abstracts and data extraction. In addition, we would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough review and constructive comments.

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions

CU and KK conceived the idea for this manuscript. CU, KK and AS reviewed, extracted and analyzed the data. KK led the data analysis. CU wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MW provided substantial comments at different stages of the manuscript. CU, KK and MW critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript for submission.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable. In accordance with the scope and design of this study no formal study protocol was written.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Charlotte Ullrich, Email: [email protected] .

Anna Stürmlinger, Email: [email protected] .

Michel Wensing, Email: [email protected] .

Katja Krug, Email: [email protected] .

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Abstract Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide With Tips & Examples

Table of Contents

Introduction

Abstracts of research papers have always played an essential role in describing your research concisely and clearly to researchers and editors of journals, enticing them to continue reading. However, with the widespread availability of scientific databases, the need to write a convincing abstract is more crucial now than during the time of paper-bound manuscripts.

Abstracts serve to "sell" your research and can be compared with your "executive outline" of a resume or, rather, a formal summary of the critical aspects of your work. Also, it can be the "gist" of your study. Since most educational research is done online, it's a sign that you have a shorter time for impressing your readers, and have more competition from other abstracts that are available to be read.

The APCI (Academic Publishing and Conferences International) articulates 12 issues or points considered during the final approval process for conferences & journals and emphasises the importance of writing an abstract that checks all these boxes (12 points). Since it's the only opportunity you have to captivate your readers, you must invest time and effort in creating an abstract that accurately reflects the critical points of your research.

With that in mind, let’s head over to understand and discover the core concept and guidelines to create a substantial abstract. Also, learn how to organise the ideas or plots into an effective abstract that will be awe-inspiring to the readers you want to reach.

What is Abstract? Definition and Overview

The word "Abstract' is derived from Latin abstractus meaning "drawn off." This etymological meaning also applies to art movements as well as music, like abstract expressionism. In this context, it refers to the revealing of the artist's intention.

Based on this, you can determine the meaning of an abstract: A condensed research summary. It must be self-contained and independent of the body of the research. However, it should outline the subject, the strategies used to study the problem, and the methods implemented to attain the outcomes. The specific elements of the study differ based on the area of study; however, together, it must be a succinct summary of the entire research paper.

Abstracts are typically written at the end of the paper, even though it serves as a prologue. In general, the abstract must be in a position to:

• Describe the paper.
• Identify the problem or the issue at hand.
• Explain to the reader the research process, the results you came up with, and what conclusion you've reached using these results.
• Include keywords to guide your strategy and the content.

Furthermore, the abstract you submit should not reflect upon any of  the following elements:

• Examine, analyse or defend the paper or your opinion.
• What you want to study, achieve or discover.
• Be redundant or irrelevant.

After reading an abstract, your audience should understand the reason - what the research was about in the first place, what the study has revealed and how it can be utilised or can be used to benefit others. You can understand the importance of abstract by knowing the fact that the abstract is the most frequently read portion of any research paper. In simpler terms, it should contain all the main points of the research paper.

What is the Purpose of an Abstract?

Abstracts are typically an essential requirement for research papers; however, it's not an obligation to preserve traditional reasons without any purpose. Abstracts allow readers to scan the text to determine whether it is relevant to their research or studies. The abstract allows other researchers to decide if your research paper can provide them with some additional information. A good abstract paves the interest of the audience to pore through your entire paper to find the content or context they're searching for.

Abstract writing is essential for indexing, as well. The Digital Repository of academic papers makes use of abstracts to index the entire content of academic research papers. Like meta descriptions in the regular Google outcomes, abstracts must include keywords that help researchers locate what they seek.

Types of Abstract

Informative and Descriptive are two kinds of abstracts often used in scientific writing.

A descriptive abstract gives readers an outline of the author's main points in their study. The reader can determine if they want to stick to the research work, based on their interest in the topic. An abstract that is descriptive is similar to the contents table of books, however, the format of an abstract depicts complete sentences encapsulated in one paragraph. It is unfortunate that the abstract can't be used as a substitute for reading a piece of writing because it's just an overview, which omits readers from getting an entire view. Also, it cannot be a way to fill in the gaps the reader may have after reading this kind of abstract since it does not contain crucial information needed to evaluate the article.

To conclude, a descriptive abstract is:

• A simple summary of the task, just summarises the work, but some researchers think it is much more of an outline
• Typically, the length is approximately 100 words. It is too short when compared to an informative abstract.
• A brief explanation but doesn't provide the reader with the complete information they need;
• An overview that omits conclusions and results

An informative abstract is a comprehensive outline of the research. There are times when people rely on the abstract as an information source. And the reason is why it is crucial to provide entire data of particular research. A well-written, informative abstract could be a good substitute for the remainder of the paper on its own.

A well-written abstract typically follows a particular style. The author begins by providing the identifying information, backed by citations and other identifiers of the papers. Then, the major elements are summarised to make the reader aware of the study. It is followed by the methodology and all-important findings from the study. The conclusion then presents study results and ends the abstract with a comprehensive summary.

In a nutshell, an informative abstract:

• Has a length that can vary, based on the subject, but is not longer than 300 words.
• Contains all the content-like methods and intentions
• Offers evidence and possible recommendations.

Informative Abstracts are more frequent than descriptive abstracts because of their extensive content and linkage to the topic specifically. You should select different types of abstracts to papers based on their length: informative abstracts for extended and more complex abstracts and descriptive ones for simpler and shorter research papers.

What are the Characteristics of a Good Abstract?

• A good abstract clearly defines the goals and purposes of the study.
• It should clearly describe the research methodology with a primary focus on data gathering, processing, and subsequent analysis.
• A good abstract should provide specific research findings.
• It presents the principal conclusions of the systematic study.
• It should be concise, clear, and relevant to the field of study.
• A well-designed abstract should be unifying and coherent.
• It is easy to grasp and free of technical jargon.
• It is written impartially and objectively.

What are the various sections of an ideal Abstract?

By now, you must have gained some concrete idea of the essential elements that your abstract needs to convey . Accordingly, the information is broken down into six key sections of the abstract, which include:

An Introduction or Background

Research methodology, objectives and goals, limitations.

Let's go over them in detail.

The introduction, also known as background, is the most concise part of your abstract. Ideally, it comprises a couple of sentences. Some researchers only write one sentence to introduce their abstract. The idea behind this is to guide readers through the key factors that led to your study.

It's understandable that this information might seem difficult to explain in a couple of sentences. For example, think about the following two questions like the background of your study:

• What is currently available about the subject with respect to the paper being discussed?
• What isn't understood about this issue? (This is the subject of your research)

While writing the abstract’s introduction, make sure that it is not lengthy. Because if it crosses the word limit, it may eat up the words meant to be used for providing other key information.

Research methodology is where you describe the theories and techniques you used in your research. It is recommended that you describe what you have done and the method you used to get your thorough investigation results. Certainly, it is the second-longest paragraph in the abstract.

In the research methodology section, it is essential to mention the kind of research you conducted; for instance, qualitative research or quantitative research (this will guide your research methodology too) . If you've conducted quantitative research, your abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection method, sampling techniques, and duration of the study. Likewise, your abstract should reflect observational data, opinions, questionnaires (especially the non-numerical data) if you work on qualitative research.

The research objectives and goals speak about what you intend to accomplish with your research. The majority of research projects focus on the long-term effects of a project, and the goals focus on the immediate, short-term outcomes of the research. It is possible to summarise both in just multiple sentences.

In stating your objectives and goals, you give readers a picture of the scope of the study, its depth and the direction your research ultimately follows. Your readers can evaluate the results of your research against the goals and stated objectives to determine if you have achieved the goal of your research.

In the end, your readers are more attracted by the results you've obtained through your study. Therefore, you must take the time to explain each relevant result and explain how they impact your research. The results section exists as the longest in your abstract, and nothing should diminish its reach or quality.

One of the most important things you should adhere to is to spell out details and figures on the results of your research.

Instead of making a vague assertion such as, "We noticed that response rates varied greatly between respondents with high incomes and those with low incomes", Try these: "The response rate was higher for high-income respondents than those with lower incomes (59 30 percent vs. 30 percent in both cases; P<0.01)."

You're likely to encounter certain obstacles during your research. It could have been during data collection or even during conducting the sample . Whatever the issue, it's essential to inform your readers about them and their effects on the research.

Research limitations offer an opportunity to suggest further and deep research. If, for instance, you were forced to change for convenient sampling and snowball samples because of difficulties in reaching well-suited research participants, then you should mention this reason when you write your research abstract. In addition, a lack of prior studies on the subject could hinder your research.

Your conclusion should include the same number of sentences to wrap the abstract as the introduction. The majority of researchers offer an idea of the consequences of their research in this case.

Your conclusion should include three essential components:

• A significant take-home message.
• Corresponding important findings.
• The Interpretation.

Even though the conclusion of your abstract needs to be brief, it can have an enormous influence on the way that readers view your research. Therefore, make use of this section to reinforce the central message from your research. Be sure that your statements reflect the actual results and the methods you used to conduct your research.

Good Abstract Examples

Abstract example #1.

Children’s consumption behavior in response to food product placements in movies.

The abstract:

"Almost all research into the effects of brand placements on children has focused on the brand's attitudes or behavior intentions. Based on the significant differences between attitudes and behavioral intentions on one hand and actual behavior on the other hand, this study examines the impact of placements by brands on children's eating habits. Children aged 6-14 years old were shown an excerpt from the popular film Alvin and the Chipmunks and were shown places for the item Cheese Balls. Three different versions were developed with no placements, one with moderately frequent placements and the third with the highest frequency of placement. The results revealed that exposure to high-frequency places had a profound effect on snack consumption, however, there was no impact on consumer attitudes towards brands or products. The effects were not dependent on the age of the children. These findings are of major importance to researchers studying consumer behavior as well as nutrition experts as well as policy regulators."

Abstract Example #2

Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. The abstract:

"The research conducted in this study investigated the effects of Facebook use on women's moods and body image if the effects are different from an internet-based fashion journal and if the appearance comparison tendencies moderate one or more of these effects. Participants who were female ( N = 112) were randomly allocated to spend 10 minutes exploring their Facebook account or a magazine's website or an appearance neutral control website prior to completing state assessments of body dissatisfaction, mood, and differences in appearance (weight-related and facial hair, face, and skin). Participants also completed a test of the tendency to compare appearances. The participants who used Facebook were reported to be more depressed than those who stayed on the control site. In addition, women who have the tendency to compare appearances reported more facial, hair and skin-related issues following Facebook exposure than when they were exposed to the control site. Due to its popularity it is imperative to conduct more research to understand the effect that Facebook affects the way people view themselves."

Abstract Example #3

The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Academic Performance in a Sample of U.S. College Students

"The cellphone is always present on campuses of colleges and is often utilised in situations in which learning takes place. The study examined the connection between the use of cell phones and the actual grades point average (GPA) after adjusting for predictors that are known to be a factor. In the end 536 students in the undergraduate program from 82 self-reported majors of an enormous, public institution were studied. Hierarchical analysis ( R 2 = .449) showed that use of mobile phones is significantly ( p < .001) and negative (b equal to -.164) connected to the actual college GPA, after taking into account factors such as demographics, self-efficacy in self-regulated learning, self-efficacy to improve academic performance, and the actual high school GPA that were all important predictors ( p < .05). Therefore, after adjusting for other known predictors increasing cell phone usage was associated with lower academic performance. While more research is required to determine the mechanisms behind these results, they suggest the need to educate teachers and students to the possible academic risks that are associated with high-frequency mobile phone usage."

Quick tips on writing a good abstract

There exists a common dilemma among early age researchers whether to write the abstract at first or last? However, it's recommended to compose your abstract when you've completed the research since you'll have all the information to give to your readers. You can, however, write a draft at the beginning of your research and add in any gaps later.

If you find abstract writing a herculean task, here are the few tips to help you with it:

1. Always develop a framework to support your abstract

Before writing, ensure you create a clear outline for your abstract. Divide it into sections and draw the primary and supporting elements in each one. You can include keywords and a few sentences that convey the essence of your message.

2. Review Other Abstracts

Abstracts are among the most frequently used research documents, and thousands of them were written in the past. Therefore, prior to writing yours, take a look at some examples from other abstracts. There are plenty of examples of abstracts for dissertations in the dissertation and thesis databases.

3. Avoid Jargon To the Maximum

When you write your abstract, focus on simplicity over formality. You should  write in simple language, and avoid excessive filler words or ambiguous sentences. Keep in mind that your abstract must be readable to those who aren't acquainted with your subject.

4. Focus on Your Research

It's a given fact that the abstract you write should be about your research and the findings you've made. It is not the right time to mention secondary and primary data sources unless it's absolutely required.

Conclusion: How to Structure an Interesting Abstract?

Abstracts are a short outline of your essay. However, it's among the most important, if not the most important. The process of writing an abstract is not straightforward. A few early-age researchers tend to begin by writing it, thinking they are doing it to "tease" the next step (the document itself). However, it is better to treat it as a spoiler.

The simple, concise style of the abstract lends itself to a well-written and well-investigated study. If your research paper doesn't provide definitive results, or the goal of your research is questioned, so will the abstract. Thus, only write your abstract after witnessing your findings and put your findings in the context of a larger scenario.

The process of writing an abstract can be daunting, but with these guidelines, you will succeed. The most efficient method of writing an excellent abstract is to centre the primary points of your abstract, including the research question and goals methods, as well as key results.

Interested in learning more about dedicated research solutions? Go to the SciSpace product page to find out how our suite of products can help you simplify your research workflows so you can focus on advancing science.

The best-in-class solution is equipped with features such as literature search and discovery, profile management, research writing and formatting, and so much more.

But before you go,

You might also like.

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings . In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst... there’s more!

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

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End

Student resources, 101 qualitative dissertation questions.

These questions and answers correlate to pages in Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End, Third Edition , which you have purchased.

As teachers of qualitative research and advisors of doctoral students, we have witnessed and experienced many of the frustrations of students confronted with the academic challenge of writing a dissertation. The questions below have been raised time and again in conversations with students and research colleagues. The intent of including these questions in the companion website for Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map From Beginning to End is that they will hopefully stimulate critical thinking, reflection, and dialogue, thereby motivating doctoral students or prospective doctoral students to seek and consult additional relevant texts and resources in order to delve deeper into the many issues raised. These questions might also be used to prompt discussion between doctoral students and their advisors.

One caveat in compiling this list of questions is to demystify the dissertation process but not to sacrifice intellectual rigor for the sake of simplification. Completing a qualitative dissertation indeed is a rigorous and demanding process, and understanding the process means grasping many complex and interrelated issues.  As a second caveat, one must remember that while most institutions will approach the dissertation in common ways, at the same time there are differences in terms of the organization and presentation, as well as distinct differences in terms of what and how qualitative language and terminology are used. This book presents information as guidelines that are meant to be flexible per institutional expectations and requirements, and subject to modification depending on your institution, department, and program. As such, students should always consult with their advisors and committee members to ascertain specific or particular institutional or departmental requirements.

The questions and answers correspond to the book’s structure and are divided into eight parts:

Parts 1–2 cover conceptual information; that is, the thinking and planning aspects of the dissertation. Parts 3–6 cover the practical aspects involved in preparing to actually write the dissertation. Part 7 includes the detailed requirements related to each of the chapters that compose the dissertation. Part 8 provides the information that one needs regarding the various activities that occur after writing the dissertation. 

• Part 1: Planning and Gearing Up
• Part 2: Choosing an Appropriate Qualitative Approach
• Part 3: Preparing and Writing the Proposal

Part 4: Conducting the Research: Data Collection

Part 5: conducting the research: data analysis, part 6: conducting the research: interpretation and synthesis.

• Part 7: Writing Up and Presenting the Research

Part 8: Planning for the Dissertation Defense and Beyond

Part 9: preparing for the defense, part 1: planning and gearing up.

1. How does qualitative research and quantitative research differ, and what are the defining features of qualitative research? 

Rather than determine cause and effect, or predict or describe the distribution of an attribute among a population, qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences and how they construct their worlds. The two paradigms or orientations that inform qualitative research, namely Interpretivism and Critical Theory, place emphasis on seeking understanding of the meanings of human actions and experiences, and on generating accounts of meaning from the viewpoints of those involved. Both paradigms assume that reality is socially constructed and that there is no single observable reality, but rather multiple realities or interpretations. For more information regarding the key defining features of qualitative research, see pages 37–44; 53–55 .

2. What is implied by “rigor” in qualitative research, and what does it mean to conduct a “rigorous” qualitative study?

Sound research requires a systematic and rigorous approach to the design and implementation of the study, the collection and analysis of data, and the interpretation and reporting of findings. Central to the rigor of qualitative research is whether participants’ perspectives have been authentically represented in the research process, and whether the findings are coherent in the sense that they “fit” the data and social context from which they were derived. Because rigor is about being very transparent, evaluating the quality of qualitative research includes criteria that are concerned with good practice in the conduct of the research (methodological rigor), as well as criteria related to the trustworthiness of interpretations made (interpretive rigor). For more information regarding rigor vis-à-vis qualitative research, refer to pages 162–164; 240–242 .

3. Writing a qualitative dissertation is a long and iterative process. What exactly is this “process,” and what should a student expect?

Writing a dissertation is a process but not one that is neat and linear. This work is intellectually rigorous—requiring intensive thinking, preparation, and planning—and is very much a matter of having tenacity, perseverance, and patience. For most people, conducting research and writing a document such as this is a first-time endeavor, an undertaking for which there is little experience. For a broad overview of the qualitative dissertation process, see page 3 .

4. How does one manage data in the most efficient and practical manner throughout the dissertation process?

As you proceed with your research, you will begin to gather and accumulate a diverse array of material that has potential relevance. You certainly do not want to lose any of your material, nor do you want to drown in it. Organizing and managing dissertation-related “stuff” right from the beginning is essential to getting on track and staying focused. For more information regarding data management strategies, see pages 19–20; 65–66 .

5. How can I start thinking about planning my time and resources?

The ability to focus, problem-solve, and make informed decisions at every step of the way will bring your study to completion. Because the time commitment required is substantial, you will need to pace yourself from the beginning. For some practical strategies, suggestions, and tips, see pages 20–23.

6. What would be a realistic timeline in which to complete my dissertation, and how can I remain practical about this?

If you work on your dissertation only when you feel like it, the project will most likely never be completed. Scheduling your time allows you to develop a plan for writing, and also helps reduce the pressure associated with deadlines, as well as the tendency to procrastinate. Moreover, setting a schedule also helps integrate your writing into the rest of your life. There are some basic principles for developing an effective writing schedule, and these can be found on pages 35–36.

7. Journaling is said to be an integral aspect of the qualitative dissertation process. Why is this necessary?   Aside from keeping track of information, you also need to keep track of your thinking. One way to ensure that you preserve your reasoning and thinking and are able to spell out the development of your ideas, is to keep a research journal. The rationale for recording your thinking is explained on page 23.  

8. What is the actual starting point of any qualitative dissertation?

The starting point for any research project, and indeed the first major challenge in conducting research, involves identifying and developing a sound topic. How to go about selecting a worthy and researchable topic and considering potential options is described on page 24.

 9. Does my selected topic need to be original or unique?

A dissertation should be an original piece of research and should make a significant contribution to the field. However, it is important to remember that making an original contribution does not imply that there need be an enormous “breakthrough.” In social science research, the discovery of new facts is rarely an important or even challenging criterion. Rather, research is a process of searching or re-searching for new insights; it is about advancing knowledge or understanding of a practice or phenomenon. More information on going about selecting a topic is provided on page 27.

10.  Once I have decided on an area of interest, how do I go about developing and refining a researchable topic? 

Once you have identified a general area of interest, you will need to begin narrowing your topic. The process of developing a researchable topic is a process of idea generation—the movement from a general interest “out there” toward a more clearly refined idea around a researchable problem. More about this “narrowing” process is discussed on pages 28–30.

Part 2: Choosing an Appropriate Qualitative Approach 

11. What are the most common traditions or genres of qualitative research, and what are the key differences between them? 

There are numerous qualitative traditions or genres, each of which has ways of defining a research topic, critically engaging the literature on that topic, identifying significant research problems, designing the study, and collecting, analyzing, and presenting the data so that it will be most relevant and meaningful. Understanding the logic behind a research approach allows your study to be appropriately positioned within an inquiry tradition and also lays the foundation for supporting your study’s findings. Pages 44–45 offer a descriptive and critical overview of some of the most current qualitative traditions.  

12. What are the key characteristics of Case Study methodology, and how do I conduct a case study?

As a form of qualitative research methodology, case study is an intensive description and analysis of a bounded social phenomenon (or multiple bounded phenomena)—be this a social unit or a system such as a program, institution, process, event, or concept. Case study is at the same time both a methodology (a type of design in qualitative inquiry) and an object of study. Case study is an exploratory form of inquiry that affords significant interaction with research participants, providing an in-depth picture of the unit of study. More information can be found on pages 46–47.

13. What is Ethnography and how is an ethnographic study conducted?

Ethnography, as both a method and a product, has multiple intellectual traditions located in diverse disciplines. The researcher studies a cultural or social group in its natural setting, closely examining customs and ways of life, with the aim of describing and interpreting cultural patterns of behavior, values, and practices. Rooted in cultural anthropology, ethnography involves extended observations of the group, most often through the researcher as a participant observer becoming immersed in the day-to-day lives of the participants. More information can be found on pages 47–48.

14. What is Phenomenology, and what are the characteristics of a phenomenological study?

Phenomenology is both a philosophy and a method, the purpose of which is to investigate the meaning of the lived experience of people to identify the core essence of human experience or phenomena as described by research participants. Phenomenology does not endeavor to develop a theory to explain the world; rather, the aim is to facilitate deeper insight to help us maintain greater contact within the world. Phenomenologists focus on describing what all participants have in common, the basic purpose of research being to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence. More information can be found on pages 48–49.

15. What is Grounded Theory, and what does a grounded theory study look like?

The purpose of grounded theory is to inductively generate theory that is grounded in, or emerges from, the data. A core component of grounded theory is to move beyond description and to have the researcher generate or discover a theory that is “grounded” in data from the field—especially in actions, interactions, and social processes. Research involves multiple recurrent stages of data collection and the refinement of abstract categories of information. More information can be found on pages 49–50.

16. What is Narrative Inquiry, and how does one go about conducting this type of research?

Narrative research has many forms, incorporates a variety of practices and applications, and is rooted in different social disciplines. As a method, narrative research begins with the experiences as expressed in lived and told stories of individuals or cultures. In this form of research, the researcher studies the lives of one or more individuals through the telling of stories, including poetry, play, or performance. Paramount to all narrative work is the centrality of relationship in the research process and recognition of the sacredness of the stories that participants share and trust within the research environment. Uncertainty and tension guide the work, and rather than produce conclusive findings, the process is intended to offer understanding and meaning. More information can be found on pages 50–51.

17. What is Action Research, and what is an action research study?

Action research is a systematic orientation toward inquiry that seeks effective solutions to complex problems that people confront in their communities and organizations. Especially valuable to those involved in professional, organizational, and community research, action research focuses on specific situations that people encounter by engaging them in collaborative relationships and working on developing localized solutions. Action research, being about collaborative and democratic practices, makes it essentially political because it aims to influence processes of change. Action research is an intervention because it promotes actual change. More information can be found on pages 51–52.

18. What are Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, and Critical Theory Research?

In the past two decades, a critical turn has taken place in the social sciences, humanities, and applied fields, with scholars challenging the historical assumptions of neutrality in inquiry, asserting that all research is fundamentally political. It is increasingly argued that research involves issues of power and that traditionally conducted social science research has silenced, marginalized, and oppressed groups in society by making them the passive objects of inquiry. Postmodernism views the world as complex and reality as transitional. In recognition of the socially constructed nature of the world, meaning rather than knowledge is sought because knowledge is seen as constrained by the discourses that were developed to protect powerful interests. Poststructuralism, with its emphasis on language, forms a subset of postmodernism. More information on these genres can be found on pages 52–53.

19. With all the different options available, how do I go about choosing an appropriate qualitative research approach for my study?

The choice of research approach is directly tied to one’s research problem and purpose. A research problem should not be modified to fit a particular research approach; nor can you assume a particular qualitative approach regardless of your research problem. Having decided on a qualitative research approach, you will proceed to appropriately design your study within the framework of one of the traditions or genres of qualitative inquiry. Thus, the components of the design process (e.g., the theoretical framework, research purpose, and methods of data collection and data analysis) reflect the principles and features that characterize that tradition. More information can be found on pages 55–56.

Part 3: Preparing and Writing the Proposal 

20. What exactly is the dissertation proposal, and what is its function and purpose?

The proposal is an integral and very distinct segment of the dissertation process. It is a well-thought-out written action plan that identifies a narrowly defined problem; a purpose that describes how the problem will be addressed; research questions that are tied to the purpose and, when answered, will shed light on the problem; a review of the literature and relevant research to determine what is already known about the topic; and data collection and data analysis methods. More information regarding the content and process of the dissertation proposal can be found on pages 61–62.

21. How do I go about developing my proposal, and what are the key components of a qualitative dissertation proposal?

As mentioned at the outset of this book, and as you will be reminded throughout, while most institutions approach the proposal and dissertation in common ways, at the same time there are differences in terms of the organization and presentation, and distinct differences in terms of what and how qualitative language and terminology are used. This book presents information as guidelines that are meant to be flexible per institutional expectations and requirements, and subject to modification depending on your institution, department, and program. You will no doubt have to attend carefully to the variations that reflect the expectations and requirements of your particular institution. More information pertaining to the core elements of a qualitative proposal (introduction, literature review, and methodology) can be found on pages 63–65.

22. What are some additional elements that I should be aware of when preparing my proposal?

In addition to the three key parts of the proposal (introduction, literature review, methodology), there are some other elements that you will need to address, and information regarding these elements can be found on pages 65–66.

23. What is an elevator speech?

You may have heard the term "elevator speech." This refers to your ability to clearly and concisely answer the question "what is your study about?" A few points about an elevator speech and its relationship vis-a-vis your proposal are presented on page 66.

24. The idea of a “literature review” really scares me! There seems to be so much that is required! How do I even begin to think about it? 

Literature review is a distinct form of academic writing, a skill that doctoral candidates must master to demonstrate knowledge of the literature landscape that surrounds any given dissertation research problem. Right from the beginning, the literature review is an essential, integral, and ongoing part of the research process. Producing good reviews is a test of your ability to manage the relevant texts and materials, analytically interpret ideas, and integrate and synthesize ideas and data with existing knowledge. Guidelines and suggestions regarding undertaking, managing, and operationalizing literature reviews are provided on pages 105–108.

25. What are some of the most important guidelines regarding academic writing?

A dissertation demonstrates your ability to write a coherent volume of intellectually demanding work. It involves the combination of performing research and writing about your research to describe and explain it. As a researcher/writer, knowing how to best express your ideas in written form to convey them to the reader becomes an essential skill. The dissertation requires a high level of scholarly writing, and as such you will have to get into the mode of writing for a particular audience, that is, the academic community. Further information regarding academic writing requirements is presented on pages 66–68.

26. What are the general format and style requirements for a qualitative dissertation?

A research report must consistently follow a selected system for format and style. Format refers to the general pattern of organization and arrangement of the report. Style refers to appropriate writing conventions and includes rules of grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation to be followed in preparing the report. Most colleges and universities require the use of a specific style—either their own or that in a published style manual. You will need to make inquiries regarding your particular department’s recommended style preference. Regardless of which style manual you use, you are expected to adhere to its rules meticulously. Further information regarding format and style is presented on pages 68–70.

27. What are some of the most important aspects of academic integrity, and what constitutes plagiarism?

The strength of your writing rests on your ability to refer to and incorporate the work of others. It is imperative, however, that you attribute recognition to all and any sources of information that you use. Integrity matters! There are few intellectual offenses more serious than plagiarism in academic and professional contexts. A charge of plagiarism can have severe consequences, including expulsion from a university or loss of a job, not to mention a writer’s loss of credibility and professional standing. Further information regarding academic integrity and strategies for avoiding plagiarism is presented on pages 71–73.

28. What is Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and why is it necessary?

Any research designed to research human subjects, interact with human subjects, provide interventions for human subjects, obtain identifiable information about living subjects, or observe and record private behavior of human subjects, must come under the jurisdiction of the governing board of Institutional Research. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have emerged in accredited academic institutions of higher education as bureaucratic entities responsible for the regulation, governance, and enforcement of significant research ethics. While there are some variations across disciplines and national boundaries, IRB approval is a stamp of credibility backed by a legitimate academic institution. This credibility is valuable both for the researcher and for the research participants. Further information regarding application for IRB approval is discussed on pages 74–75.

29. What are the differences between “methodology” and “research methods”?

Methodology determines how the researcher thinks about a study, how decisions about the study are made, and how researchers position themselves to engage firstly with participants and then with the data that are generated. The term methods commonly denote specific techniques, procedures, or tools used by the researcher to generate and analyze data. The methods that a qualitative researcher chooses are informed by both the research design and the research methodology so that there is a conceptual fit across all levels. More about methodology and methods, and the interrelationship between them, can be found on page 157 .

30. What is meant by “methodological congruence”?

As the researcher, you actively create the link among problem, purpose, and approach through a process of reflecting on problem and purpose, focusing on researchable questions and considering how to best address these questions. Thinking along these lines affords a research study “methodological congruence.” In essence, the position of the researcher is the bridge between philosophy, methodology, and the application of methods. Thus, the alignment between the research question, chosen methodology and personal philosophy, and the ability of the researcher to be reflexive in relation to the research is critical to ensure congruence in the study that will be manifested in the products of the research. More information regarding the notion of methodological congruence can be found on pages 153–154.

31. What are the most commonly used methods of data collection in qualitative research?

Based on the research questions, specific data collection methods are chosen to gather the required information in the most appropriate and meaningful way. A solid rationale for the choice of methods used is crucial, as this indicates methodological congruence, and illustrates that the choice of methods is grounded in the study’s overall research design. Details pertaining to some of the most commonly used methods of data collection (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observation, critical incidents, surveys, and document review) can be found on pages 154–157.

32. What is meant by “triangulation” of methods, and how important is this?

Triangulation enhances the quality of data from multiple sources (e.g., people, events) in multiple ways (e.g., interviews, observations, document review) with the idea that this will illuminate different facets of situations and experiences, and help portray them in their entirety and complexity. More about triangulation strategies and the significance thereof in qualitative research can be found on page 154.

33. What are some of the most important considerations when writing up the methods section?

To show that you have done a critical reading of the literature, and to acknowledge that data collection methods are not without some advantages, your discussion should be sufficiently detailed. More information pertaining to these necessary details is presented on page 158.

34. The idea of “researcher as instrument” is often portrayed as problematic. How do I best understand this phenomenon, and how can I go about defending this perspective to those who see qualitative research as limited and subjective?

“Researcher as instrument” raises important ethical, accountability, and social justice issues, including inter-subjectivity, power, positioning, and voice. Importantly, the reflexive researcher understands that all research is value-bound and that a reflective stance is therefore imperative; that is, reflexivity implies the explicit self-consciousness on the part of the researcher, including social, political, and value positions. Reflexivity is defined as the researcher’s conscious awareness of her or his cognitive and emotional filters comprising their experiences, world-views, and biases that may influence their interpretation of participants’ perceptions. More information on this key qualitative research issue can be found on pages 54–55; 242–243.

35. What is qualitative data analysis really all about?  

Qualitative data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure, and meaning to the masses of data you have collected. Although there are stages dedicated to formal analysis, analysis is an inherent and ongoing part of the research and writing process. Many students become overwhelmed at this point of the dissertation process, having completed or still being immersed in data collection and faced with mounds and mounds of “stuff” and unsure about what needs to be done first. Indeed, there can be a really vast amount of data that need to be transcribed, organized, and reduced. More on qualitative data analysis can be found on pages 187–189.

36. What advice is there for student researchers to best prepare themselves for the huge task of data analysis?

The data generated by qualitative methods are voluminous, and the sheer quantity of raw data can indeed be quite daunting. The best piece of advice I can offer is that if data are to be thoroughly analyzed, they must be well organized . Attention to detail in managing data is important at every stage of the research process. This notion becomes all too clear when it is time to write up the research. Strategies regarding data management in preparation for data analysis are presented on pages 189–190.

37. What does it mean to develop an “analytic mindset”?

Qualitative research does not purport to be objective nor is this a goal of qualitative research. However, to be rigorous, qualitative research does strive to be transparent, and to openly and clearly document and communicate all decisions taken throughout the research process. This must become an integral part of your thinking and mindset. More about ways of maintaining transparency, and hence ensuring the rigor of your study, is discussed on pages 158–159; 188–189.

38. There are many different ways to go about doing qualitative data analysis. How do I decide on the best approach for my specific study?

Different qualitative research traditions or genres promote specific strategies for data analysis. Whatever approach you choose to use should be suited to the research tradition that you have adopted. In addition, the preference of your advisor and your department will of course need to be taken into consideration. Different analytic strategies are discussed on pages 190–193.

39. What are “codes,” and what are their role and function in the qualitative data analysis process?

Much is made about coding as a fundamental skill for qualitative analysis. Although there is really nothing that mysterious about it, the literature on data analysis and coding in particular is voluminous, and the vast amount of information can certainly be overwhelming. Details pertaining to codes and the overall coding process are provided on pages 197–199.

40. What is the procedure for coding data?

The reason you have spent so much time and energy talking to participants is to find out what their experience is and to endeavor to understand it from their perspective. You, as the researcher, will be exercising judgment as to what you think is significant in each interview transcript. Some passages may stand out because they are striking to you in some way. Others may stand out because they are contradictory and seem inconsistent with your conceptual framework. In this regard, you must be vigilant in not only seeking material that supports your own opinions but also remaining open to the unexpected. All of the aspects of coding your material are presented on pages 201–202.

41. What do you do once you have coded your data?

Once you have coded your material, you are ready to categorize your units of information. What is imperative is that your coding scheme and conceptual framework continue to remain flexible. All aspects of the process of assigning your codes to categories are presented on pages 202–204.

42. What is content analysis, and how does it differ from coding?

In traditional content analysis studies, counting the number of times a particular set of codes occurs is an important measure in assessing the frequency of items or phenomena. However, in the qualitative analysis process, frequency of occurrence is not necessarily an indicator of significance. The analytic approaches for most coding methods do not ask you to count; they ask you to ponder, speculate, assess, integrate, and synthesize. Qualitative analysis therefore goes way beyond simply counting . See pages 199–200 for further discussion on this distinction.

43. There is a lot of talk around computer software analysis programs? What types are available, and are these preferable than conducting a manual “old fashioned” analysis of my data?

If you choose to make use of computer aided software, then searching for the most appropriate program is important so that it directly supports and is usable in terms of your study’s research design and methodology. Information regarding the most common software currently in use, including benefits and limitations, is provided on pages 205–207.

44. How does “data analysis” differ from “interpretation of findings”?

By way of data analysis , you are forming a record of frequently occurring phenomena or patterns of behavior. Once you have established patterns, these patterns need to be explained.  This is where interpretation of findings comes into play. Whereas the chapter of data analysis presents the findings of your research by organizing data from various sources into categories to produce a readable narrative, the purpose of the chapter dealing with interpretation of findings is to provide interpretative insights into your study’s findings. You now have an opportunity to communicate to others what you think your findings mean and integrate your findings with literature, research, and practice. More about this is discussed on pages 233–236.

45. What essentially is “interpretation” in qualitative research? How do I go about interpreting what I have found?

Qualitative research begins with questions, and its ultimate purpose is learning. To inform the questions, the researcher collects data . Data are like building blocks that, when grouped into patterns, become information , which in turn, when applied or used, becomes knowledge . The challenge of qualitative analysis lies in making sense of large amounts of data—reducing raw data, identifying what is significant, and constructing a framework for communicating the meaning of your findings. This is discussed on pages 240–243.

46.  How and in what ways does analysis of findings differ among the various qualitative research traditions?

Analytical approaches are linked to particular forms of data collection and are underpinned by specific conceptual and philosophical traditions. These differences are discussed on page 238.

47. How and in what ways does interpretation of findings differ among the various qualitative research traditions?

Just as there are clear analytic distinctions among traditions or genres demanding that the researcher will have to think about data analysis in a particular way, so are interpretation and representation strategies specific to each tradition. These differences are discussed on page 241.

48. How do I prepare myself for analysis and interpretation?

You might ask yourself what the chapter on interpretation of findings is really all about and what it should constitute. Since findings are not to be taken at face value, how does one go about seeking the deeper meanings behind the findings? What is really involved? And how does one get started? How to begin thinking about your analysis and interpretation is presented on page 236.

 49. How do I begin to go about analyzing and interpreting my findings? 

You are most likely asking yourself what the chapter on analysis of findings is really all about and what it should constitute. How does one get started, and what is really involved? You may want to structure your thinking according to three interrelated activities: (a) Seeking significant patterns and themes among the findings, (b) making use of description and interpretation, and (c) providing some sort of synthesis or integration. More about these activities and how to go about “peeling back” the many layers in order to explain the meaning behind your findings is provided on pages 236–244.

50. What are the limitations of my credibility in the analytic and interpretive process? After all, I bring my own perspectives and experiences, and hence assumptions, subjectivity and biases!

Whereas in quantitative research the role of the researcher is detached with the aim of being as objective as possible, in qualitative research, the researcher is personally involved, believing that research is always value-bound. Factors that enhance the credibility of a qualitative study are discussed on page 244.

51. A lot is made about the notion of “synthesis.” What are the implications of synthesizing findings in qualitative research?

Qualitative research involves moving from a holistic perspective to individual parts (analysis) and then back to a holistic look at the data (synthesis). Whereas the findings chapter splits apart and separates out pieces and chunks of data to tell the “story of the research,” the analysis chapter is an attempt to reconstruct a holistic understanding of your study. Analysis is intended to ultimately depict an integrated picture. More details are presented on pages 243–244.

Part 7: Writing Up and Presenting the Research 

You will notice that the questions in Part 7 below are organized around particular standard dissertation chapters. Please be aware that different institutions have different expectations and requirements with regard to the structure and flow of dissertation chapters. Students will need to consult with their advisors in this regard. 

7.1 Introduction to the Study 

52. What is the overall purpose of Chapter One (the study’s Introduction), and what are the key components of this chapter?

The first chapter of your dissertation is the most critical, and everything that follows hinges on how well this chapter is constructed. The introductory chapter therefore sets the stage for the study; it also makes a case for the significance of the problem, contextualizes the study, and provides an introduction to its basic components—most specifically, directing the reader to the research problem, research purpose, and research questions. This first chapter of the dissertation also forms part of the proposal. The various elements that comprise this chapter are discussed on pages 9–10; 85.

53. How do I move from identifying a research topic to developing and articulating a viable research problem?

The sooner you can begin to narrow your research interests (topic) and identify and develop a topical focus (research problem), the better.  Beginning researchers often confuse a topic with a research problem. A topic refers to a general area of interest. A research problem is more specific; it seeks to understand some aspect of the general topic. More on how to begin narrowing down a research topic and developing a clear research problem is discussed on pages 86–88.

54. What is the research problem, and how does this inform the development of research purpose and research questions?

At the heart of a dissertation is the articulation of the research problem. This is the place where most committee members go first to understand and assess the merits of a proposal or a dissertation. More on the research problem and how it informs the research questions is discussed on pages 88–91.

55. How do I go about developing and honing my research problem statement?

The problem statement serves a foundational role in that it communicates what is the formal reason for engaging in the dissertation in the first place. The problem statement is the discrepancy between what we already know and what we want to know. The problem statement also illustrates why we care; that is, why your study should be conducted. More details about what constitute a viable problem statement, and how to go about assessing viability, is discussed on pages 87–89.

56. What is the purpose statement, and how do I articulate this?

Once you have identified your own narrowly defined topic and concise problem statement, you are ready to formulate your purpose statement. The purpose statement is the major objective or intent of the study ; it enables the reader to understand the central thrust of the research.  More about the purpose statement and how to go about developing this is discussed on pages 88–90.

57. How do I develop and articulate effective and relevant research questions?

The research questions are directly tied to the research purpose. Answering the questions must accomplish the study’s purpose and contribute to shedding light on and addressing the problem. One must be able to trace all the ideas in the research questions back through the purpose statement to the problem statement; this underscores that you must ask relevant and effective questions. Details regarding how to craft research questions are included in pages 90–92.

58. What are some other additional elements that need to be included in the introductory chapter?

The first chapter of your dissertation (and of your proposal) introduces and describes the critical components that set in place a research study: problem, purpose, and research questions. In addition, there are some other associated elements or subsections. It should be noted that there may be some variations in required subheadings depending on individual programs and/or universities, and you should be sure to check for this. An outline of typical subheadings that compose Chapter One is presented on pages 92–94.

7.2 The Literature Review Chapter

59. What is the function and purpose of the literature review chapter in the qualitative dissertation?

The literature review is a sophisticated form of research in its own right that requires a great deal of research skill and insight. You are expected to identify appropriate topics or issues, justify why these are the appropriate choice for addressing the research problem, search for and retrieve the appropriate literature, analyze and critique the literature, create new understandings of the topic through synthesis, and develop a conceptual framework that will provide the underlying structure for your study. More on the function and purpose of the literature review chapter is presented on pages 104–105.

60. What is the scope of the literature review chapter in the dissertation? In other words, how extensive is the review meant to be?

The major purpose of reviewing the literature is to determine what has already been done that relates to your topic. This knowledge not only prevents you from unintentionally duplicating research that has already been conducted, but it also affords you the understanding and insight needed to situate your topic within an existing framework. Therefore, a thorough search and reading of related literature is, in a very real sense, part of your own academic development—part of becoming an “expert” in your chosen field of inquiry. Given all of this, you might be asking, “What is the scope of a literature review, and how extensive will this review need to be?” These questions are responded to on pages 105–108.

61. How do I start preparing for the literature review?  

Thinking about the entire literature review may be overwhelming and intimidating. Instead of viewing it as one big whole, try to think of it as a series of steps—and steps within those steps—and prepare to tackle each topic one by one, setting small achievable goals within each topic area. The different stages of the literature review process, and all the key elements involved in digesting scholarly sources, are discussed on pages 108–118.

62. What is the idea of “synthesis” vis-à-vis the literature review? And how is synthesis different from summary?

Synthesis and summary are strategies that are used in reading, review, and research. Both are important skills or techniques in making sense of what one is reading, and each one plays an important role in the qualitative research process. However, they are very different activities. Each has a different purpose, process, and outcome. This is discussed on pages 121–122.

63. What should I know about and be aware of with regard web/online resources?

Although not always scholarly, the Internet will more than likely be your initial starting point for topic ideas and information. However, anyone anywhere can put information on the web, so any information from the Internet should be cited with caution. Remember that using the Internet to find academic information takes a lot of hard work to carefully evaluate and determine if a web resource is a reliable, authoritative, or even a scholarly information resource. Criteria for evaluating the credibility, accuracy, currency, and legitimacy of web resources are discussed on pages 113–114.

64. How do I present my literature review in the dissertation?

Qualitative researchers use existing literature to guide their studies in various ways depending on the type of study being conducted. There are also differences regarding the purpose and process for presenting the review of the literature with respect to each of the research traditions. Guidelines for presenting a literature review are discussed on pages 122–124.

65. So much is made of the conceptual framework. What is it, and how can I start thinking about this?

Graduate students often lack a clear understanding of the nature of the conceptual framework; what it is, its purpose, where it is derived from, how it is developed, how it is used, and what effect it has on research. Thus, they find themselves at a loss in the process of developing a conceptual framework. Moreover, oftentimes experienced researchers and advisors encounter challenges in guiding candidates as to what constitutes a rigorous and meaningful conceptual framework. As such, the structure and function of a conceptual framework continues to mystify and frustrate. More information on this is presented on pages 124–127.

66. What are the role, function, and application of the conceptual framework in the dissertation?

The conceptual framework plays a central role throughout the entire research process, and, most important, in the final analysis. A well-conceived conceptual framework is influenced by and at the same time influences the research process at all levels and at all stages. There are a set of distinct roles and functions of the conceptual framework in a qualitative dissertation, and these are discussed on pages 127–128.

67. What is the essential value of the dissertation’s conceptual framework? And are there any limitations associated with a conceptual framework?

The conceptual or theoretical framework strengthens your study in many ways, and there are also some caveats to be aware of. The value and limitations are explained on pages 128–130.

68. How do I go about developing and presenting my study’s conceptual framework? Does this have to be an elaborate diagram?

In acknowledging the conceptual framework as an integral element of the research process, as a qualitative researcher, you need to know how to develop and create a conceptual or theoretical framework and where to introduce this in the dissertation. The term is somewhat an abstract notion, conjuring up a “model” or “diagram” of some sort. Moreover, there is no uniform and consistent definition, and discussions in the literature around conceptual frameworks are not clear or precise. Strategies for developing the conceptual framework and ideas for presenting it in the dissertation are discussed on pages 130–132. 

7.3 The Methodology Chapter

69. What is the purpose of the Methodology chapter?

The Methodology chapter of the dissertation presents the research design and the specific procedures used in conducting your study. In this chapter, you will show the reader that you understand the methodological implications of the choices you have made and, in particular, that you have thought carefully about the linkages between your study’s purpose and research questions, and the research approach and research methods that you have selected. More details regarding the purpose of this chapter are presented on pages 143–145.

70. What are the key components of the Methodology chapter?

The dissertation’s methodology chapter covers a lot of ground. In this chapter, you will document each step that you have taken in designing and conducting the study. This chapter situates the study within a particular methodological tradition and provides a detailed description of all aspects of the design and procedures of the study. While your headings and subheadings in this chapter are contingent on your particular university’s requirements, make sure your sections are in a logical sequence and what you write is comprehensive, clear, precise, and sufficiently detailed. An overview of the elements that would constitute a comprehensive and sound methodology chapter is presented on pages 11–12; 146–147.

71. What is the research sample, and how is this different from the research population?

The research sample is a subset of the population. Identifying your research sample, and the method you used to select that sample, provides the reader with some sense of the scope of your study. In addition, your study’s credibility relies on the quality of procedures you have used to select the research participants. Further information regarding qualitative research samples is provided on page 147.

72. How do I go about selecting my research sample, and how large does it need to be?

In qualitative research, selection of the research sample is purposeful . The logic of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases, with the objective of yielding insight and understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. This method is in contrast to the random sampling procedures that characterize quantitative research, which is based on statistical probability theory. Further information regarding purposeful sampling and sample size is discussed on pages 148–149.

73. What kinds of information am I going to need from the research site and research sample?

Four areas of information are typically needed for most qualitative studies: contextual, perceptual, demographic, and theoretical. Additional details regarding the types of information needed, and how to go about collecting that information, are discussed on pages 149–151.

74. What is “research design,” and what are the implications of the choice of research design for my study?

Engaging in research involves choosing a study design that corresponds with your study’s problem, purpose, research questions, choice of site, and research sample. This calls to the fore the concept of methodological congruence, whereby all the study’s components are interconnected and interrelated so that the study itself is a cohesive whole rather than the sum of fragmented or isolated parts. You will also need to consider whether the design is a comfortable match with your worldview and your skills. How to go about developing the research design of your study and the criteria to take into consideration in doing so are presented on pages 151–152.

75. What are the key ethical considerations in conducting qualitative research?

In any research study, ethical issues relating to the protection of the participants are of vital concern. As researchers, we are morally bound to conduct our research in a manner that minimizes potential harm to those involved in the study. For the most part, issues of ethics focus on establishing safeguards that will protect the rights of participants and include informed consent, on protecting participants from harm, and on ensuring confidentiality. As a qualitative researcher, you need to remain attentive throughout your study to the researcher–participant relationship, which is determined by roles, status, and cultural norms. Central issues with regard to ethics in qualitative research are discussed on pages 161–162.

76.  How do I best understand issues of “trustworthiness” or “legitimation” regarding qualitative research?

Qualitative research is based to a large degree on reflection and interpretation. The researcher as instrument brings her or his experience and perspective to the table. Qualitative research does not purport to be objective, nor is this a goal of qualitative research. However, to be rigorous, qualitative research does strive to be transparent and to openly, legitimately, and clearly document and communicate all decisions taken throughout the research process. Issues of trustworthiness in qualitative research (credibility, dependability, and confirmability) and how these compare with quantitative research criteria are discussed on pages 162–163.

77. How can I better understand conflicting reports about the generalizability of qualitative research?

Although generalizability is not the intended goal of qualitative research, what must be addressed is the issue of transferability ; that is, the ways in which your reader determines whether and to what extent some of the elements of your study can be used as a way to understand similar elements of another context. Exactly what transferability implies and how to account for transferability in your qualitative study are discussed on page 164.

78. What is meant by “limitations” and “delimitations” in a qualitative research study, and what is the difference between these two concepts?

Limitations of the study are the characteristics of design or methodology that expose the conditions that may weaken the study. Delimitations refer to the initial choices made about the broader, overall design of your study and are those characteristics that define and clarify the conceptual boundaries of your research . More about limitations and delimitations and how to account for these in your study is discussed on pages 164–166.

7.4. Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings 

79. What constitutes the dissertation’s findings analysis chapter?

In this chapter, you present the analysis of your raw data, which are your findings. You have now moved beyond data to information . The challenge of qualitative analysis lies in making sense of large amounts of data, identifying what is significant, and constructing a framework for communicating the essence of what the data reveal. This chapter lays the foundation for the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations that will appear in subsequent chapters. Factors to take into consideration when preparing and writing this chapter, as well as a suggested outline, are provided on pages 13; 187–189.

80. What is the procedure involved in qualitative data analysis, and what is the role of the conceptual framework?

Data analysis demands a heightened awareness of the data and an open mind to recurring and common threads, some of which may be subtle. The process can be repetitious, tedious, and time consuming. While there is a somewhat systematic and stepwise procedure to prepare and analyze the data, the interrelationship among these steps is not necessarily linear. The phases involved in data analysis and the integral function of your conceptual framework are presented on pages 193–197.

81. How are research findings to be presented in a qualitative dissertation?

As the researcher, your goal is to tell a story that should be vivid and interesting, while also accurate and credible. In your report, the events, the people, and their words and actions are made explicit so that readers can experience the situation in a similar way to the researcher, as well as experience the world of the research participants.

Qualitative analysis is a creative and ongoing process that requires thoughtful judgments about what is significant and meaningful in the data. General guidelines for presenting this chapter are presented on pages 207–208.

82. What does this mean to present findings by way of quotation categories, and how do I go about doing this?

In qualitative research, interviewing is usually the major source of the data needed for understanding the phenomenon under study. The findings of qualitative research are typically reported in a narrative manner. Reports of qualitative studies usually include extensive samples of quotations from participants, and these provide the detail and substantiate the story that you are telling. An overwhelming question facing any researcher embarking on the write-up of the research report is, “Where do I begin to tell my story?” The various steps involved in this process are discussed on pages 208–212.

83. What is meant by thematic presentation of findings?

While the standard form of presenting quotes in qualitative research is to weave the quotes into your narrative, this is not the only form. Quotes can also be presented within charts, tables, or figures, with the overall goal to convey the story-line of your research according to the most predominant themes. More about this way of presenting findings can be found on pages 212–213.

7.5 Analysis and Interpretation of Findings 

84. What is the role and function of the analysis and synthesis chapter?

The previous chapter of the dissertation involved the analysis of data to produce the study’s findings. Organizing, preparing, and presenting the findings of your research is a somewhat objective exercise; the researcher is, in this instance, a reporter of information. This chapter involves the analysis, interpretation, and synthesis of those findings . Both chapters involve analytic decisions, and these two chapters together should convince a reader that you, the researcher, are sufficiently knowledgeable about the interlocking analytic processes that constitute qualitative research. Further details pertaining to this chapter’s place in the dissertation are provided in pages 13–14; 233–236.

85. What does it mean to seek patterns and themes?

Qualitative analysis is essentially about searching for patterns and themes; that is, the trends that you see emerging from among your findings. Now again, when you are analyzing your findings, you look for themes once again—this time not in raw data but in the findings that have emerged. Bear in mind that analytical approaches are linked to particular forms of data collection and are underpinned by specific conceptual and philosophical traditions. Each tradition provides a perspective on reality that is specific to that tradition. More on this is discussed on pages 238–240.

86. Once I have established patterns and themes, how do I go on to describe and interpret my study’s findings?

A qualitative dissertation should not only provide sufficient description to allow the reader to understand the basis for an interpretation but also provide meaningful interpretation to allow the reader to appreciate the description. An interpretive reading of your data involves constructing a version of what you think the findings mean or represent or what you think you can infer from the findings . Interpretation, in effect, moves the whole analytic process to a higher level. Guidelines for interpreting your material are presented on pages 240–243.

7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter

87. Formulating the study’s conclusions and recommendations constitute the final chapter of the dissertation. What should I be aware of regarding this chapter?

The final chapter of the dissertation presents a set of concluding statements and recommendations. By way of the conclusions, the story of your research is wrapped up , bringing it to its logical finale. Recommendations are the application of those conclusions. Writing conclusions and providing recommendations will draw on your ability to be a critical and, at the same time, creative thinker. Characteristics of worthy conclusions and recommendations are presented on pages 15; 269–270.

 88. How do I begin thinking about developing trustworthy conclusions?

When you were developing the study’s key findings, you engaged in critical thinking and reflection about all the potential deeper meanings behind these findings. As such, you were able to brainstorm a number of possible interpretations that explained your findings. In generating conclusions, you now need to go back to your findings and interpretations. A process to stimulate thinking about developing conclusions and making sure that your findings, interpretations, and conclusions are all aligned is presented on pages 270–271.

89. How do I write up my study’s conclusions?

As a general rule of thumb, you should provide at least one conclusion for each finding. However, the process is not altogether linear, and so it is possible that one conclusion can (but does not always) cut across more than one finding. It is important to bear in mind when thinking about and formulating each of your conclusions that they must be logically tied to one another . More about writing conclusions, as well as a tool for generating conclusions, is presented on pages 271–272.

90. How can I go about I developing actionable recommendations?

Recommendations follow your findings and conclusions. They are the application of those conclusions. A tool for generating the study’s recommendations is presented on pages 272–273.

91. How do I write up my recommendations?

You make recommendations based on your own experiences in conducting the research, as well as in any other professional capacity. Recommendations can have implications for policy and practice, as well as for further research. Further details pertaining to providing recommendations are presented on page 273.

92.     Will I have an opportunity to reflect on my research and findings?

Most certainly! As you near the end of your study, you may want to pause and reflect on the long qualitative journey you have undertaken. You may include this reflection in the last chapter, following your conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions about this piece of the dissertation are provided on pages 273–274.

93. Why is alignment such an important component to consider, and why should this be revisited as I near completion of the dissertation?  

You will have known throughout your research about the importance of alignment among the first three core critical elements: problem, purpose, and research questions. As you reach the final stages of writing your dissertation, it is crucial that you once again make certain that all the necessary elements that constitute your dissertation are aligned with one another. This will ensure that your study is tight and that you have taken an important step in ensuring methodological integrity ; this is extremely important for the defense when, among other things, the methodological integrity of your research is finely scrutinized. More about alignment is presented on pages 283–284.

 94. How do I craft my study’s title?

The title of your dissertation should catch the readers’ attention while at the same time properly informing them of the main focus of your study. Crafting an effective title is an iterative and ongoing exercise. A title has many uses. Most important, it should accurately reflect your work. More details about the title are provided on pages 284–285.

95. How do I prepare an Abstract?

Writing a good abstract requires that you explain what you did and what you found in simple, direct language. The abstract needs to be dense with information but also readable, well organized, concise and specific, focused, and coherent.  Abstracts can differ in terms of style and word count. It is suggested that you consult with your advisor, departmental regulations, and the relevant style manual regarding abstract requirements. More about the abstract is provided on pages 285–289.

96. What is the essential purpose of the dissertation defense?

The defense, in effect, moves your dissertation from the private domain into the arena of public discourse, providing you with some sense of closure. Actual procedures for conducting the meeting and the formalities involved are discussed on pages 302–303.

97. What is the process for selecting a defense committee?

Be aware that each university or college has a different system regarding dissertation committee structure and the process of preparing for that structure. Each institution has its own way of going about setting up the defense meeting, and it is recommended that you consult with your institution’s office of doctoral studies with regard to the correct procedures and protocol. Some general guidelines are provided on pages 300–301.

98. How can I best prepare myself for this milestone event, and what are some beneficial pre-defense strategies that I should know about?

Because this is the culminating aspect of a rigorous, traditional, and long-standing ritual, you are likely to approach the defense with some sense of anxiety. This is certainly understandable! Therefore, the more you can frame the defense as an opportunity to present your research publicly and the more you take a proactive position, the better the experience is likely to be. Guidelines toward this end are provided on pages 302–306.

99. Following the defense and all necessary revisions to my dissertation, what opportunities can I pursue regarding publishing my research?  

The dissertation process comes to a definitive end when the final document is submitted and the doctoral degree is awarded. At this juncture, you might consider looking beyond the dissertation and think of how you can share what you have researched with a broader audience than the academic community. Publishing your findings is a way to contribute to the ongoing knowledge base and work toward advancing your professional career. Details regarding publishing your research are provided on pages 308–309.

100. Following the defense and all necessary revisions to my dissertation, what opportunities can I pursue regarding presenting my research?

In addition to publications, completion of the dissertation provides you with  opportunities to present your study in other academic settings and research forums, such as graduate seminars and professional associations. Details regarding presenting your research are provided on page 310.

101. It is sometimes said that “the best dissertation is a DONE dissertation.”  However, how does one actually evaluate the quality of a qualitative dissertation?

I have no doubt that you will ask yourself whether there are key criteria or pointers that can help you determine the quality of your work as you navigate this long and intense journey. The short answer to this question is yes!  Once you have some idea of the core elements that are required for the various sections of your dissertation, an evaluation rubric is included for your convenience on pages 316–325 . Please be sure to use this rubric as a broad set of guidelines only in checking your work at different points along the way and in assessing or evaluating the quality of your work overall once completed. Hopefully this tool will be useful to you in determining where limitations may lie and where improvements can be made. 

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 10 December 2020

Qualitative research methods in medical dissertations: an observational methodological study on prevalence and reporting quality of dissertation abstracts in a German university

• Charlotte Ullrich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9757-913X 1 ,
• Anna Stürmlinger 1 ,
• Michel Wensing 1 &
• Katja Krug 1  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  20 , Article number:  301 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

7148 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Qualitative methods offer a unique contribution to health research. Academic dissertations in the medical field provide an opportunity to explore research practice. Our aim was to assess the use of qualitative methods in dissertations in the medical field.

By means of a methodological observational study, an analysis of all academic medical dissertations’ abstracts between 1998 and 2018 in a repository databank of a large medical university faculty in Germany was performed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.). All abstracts including “qualitativ*” were screened for studies using qualitative research methods. Data were extracted from abstracts using a category grid considering a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology). Thereby reporting quality was assessed.

In total, 103 abstracts of medical dissertations between 1998 and 2018 (1.4% of N  = 7619) were included, 60 of MD dissertations and 43 of medical sciences dissertations. Half of the abstracts ( n  = 51) referred to dissertations submitted since 2014. Most abstracts related to public health/hygiene ( n  = 27) and general practice ( n  = 26), followed by medical psychology ( n  = 19). About half of the studies ( n  = 47) used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half ( n  = 56) used mixed methods. For data collection, primarily individual interviews were used ( n  = 80), followed by group interviews ( n  = 33) and direct observation ( n  = 11). Patients ( n  = 36), physicians ( n  = 36) and healthcare professionals ( n  = 17) were the most frequent research participants. Incomplete reporting of participants and data analysis was common ( n  = 67). Nearly half of the abstracts ( n  = 46) lacked information on how data was analysed, most of the remaining ( n  = 43) used some form of content analysis. In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants, sample size,; data collection and analysis method).

A small number of academic dissertations used qualitative research methods. About a third of these reported all key aspects of the methods used in the abstracts. Further research on the quality of choice and reporting of methods for qualitative research in dissertations is recommended.

Peer Review reports

Qualitative research methods offer a unique contribution to health research, particular for exploration of the experiences of patients, healthcare professionals and others [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. While (general) epidemiology primarily addresses health and healthcare in populations and clinical research concentrates on medical interventions and health prognosis, qualitative research methods focus on different actors’ perspectives, experiences and behaviours in health-related contexts. Qualitative research entails a broad spectrum of methods of data conduction and data analysis: individual interviews illuminate individual perceptions [ 6 ], group interviews deliver insights into shared norms and opinions [ 7 ], direct observations facilitate understandings of behaviours in healthcare practice [ 8 , 9 , 10 ] and documents can offer insights into discourses and self-representations [ 11 ]. For data analysis, methods combining inductive and deductive steps are most suitable for exploratory research questions utilizing existing results, theories and concepts [ 12 ]. Given these prospects, little is known on the practice of applying qualitative research methods, especially concerning medicine.

In dissertations, a foundation for future scientific work is laid; therefore, guidance and rigour are of special importance [ 13 ]. Dissertations in medical departments provide a good opportunity to explore research practices of students and young academics. In Germany, about 60% of all graduating medical students complete an academic dissertation [ 14 ], which they usually finish parallel to medical school within a full-time equivalent of about a year [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. As a by-product, medical doctoral students are increasingly among the authors of published research, holding first-authorship in about 25% [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

In Germany, basic scientific training is a required part of the medical curriculum and recent policies put even more emphasis on the development of scientific competencies [ 15 , 21 , 22 ]. National regulations specify scientific competencies giving explicit recommendations for quantitative methods. Medical students have rarely received training in qualitative methods. However, health care professions and qualitative methods share a perspective directed to practice and interactions. Interviews and observations are already commonly used as clinical and diagnostic tools.

In addition to the doctoral degrees for medical and dental graduates (Doctor medicinae (dentariae), Dr. med. (dent.)), students with other disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. natural scientists, psychologists and social scientists) complete dissertations at medical faculties in Germany (often labelled Doctor scientiarum humanarum, Dr. sc. hum. or Doctor rerum medicarum, Dr. rer. medic.). Although regulations differ slightly, the degrees are usually situated within and regulated by the same institutional culture and context (e.g. faculty, department, supervision and aspired publications).

The aim of this study was to understand the current practice of applying qualitative research methods helping identify gaps in reporting and need for guidance. By means of a methodological study – a subtype of observational studies that evaluates the design, analysis of reporting of other research-related reports [ 23 ] – we investigated volume and variety of the use of qualitative research methods in dissertations at a German medical faculty. Hereby we wanted to inform methodological advances to health research and outline implications for medical education in scientific competencies training.

Search strategy

Dissertations in the medical field were retrospectively assessed: In a document analysis, all dissertation abstracts at one medical faculty were reviewed. This faculty was chosen as it is one of the oldest and largest medical faculties in Germany, with a strong research tradition and a high dissertation rate among graduating students. All abstracts from 01/01/1998 to 31/12/2018, which were publicly available in the repository databank of the university, were reviewed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.) written in German or English. All types of studies using qualitative research methods, all types of human participants, all types of interventions and all types of measures were eligible. We focused on abstracts, because full text dissertations are not publicly available and are helpful to get an overview of a number of method-related issues. Although serving as a proxy, abstracts should provide a sufficient summary of the dissertation, including crucial information on study design, independently from the full text. In the databank, relevant documents had to be labelled a) “abstract of a medical dissertation” (referring to both degree types). To further identify dissertations using qualitative methods b) the search term “qualitativ*” was used as an inclusion criterium.

Selection and data extraction

All identified abstracts were pre-screened independently by two researchers (AS, LS) and then reviewed by the main research team (KK, AS, CU) excluding abstracts using “qualitativ*” only in respect to non-methods-related issues (e.g. quality of life). Data on a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology) (see App. 2) was then extracted independently by two team members (AS, LS) and crossed-checked (KK, CU). Data extraction was initially guided by two widely used reporting guidelines for qualitative health research articles [ 24 , 25 ] and adapted to reflect the abstract format: Abstracts provided comparable information on the set-up of study design and sample. Reporting of results was not assessed due to heterogeneity and briefness. Data extraction forms were piloted and adjusted to inductive findings. Disagreements were discussed, assessed and solved by consensus by the main research team (KK, AS, CU). Extracted data were analysed and reported as absolute and relative frequencies. As all abstracts were available, no further data was obtained from authors.

Search results

Out of a total of 7619 dissertation abstracts, 296 dissertations were initially identified. Of these, 173 abstracts were excluded from the study as “qualitativ*” in these abstracts did not refer to the research method. Additionally, 20 abstracts (12 medicine, 8 medical science) were not further included in the analysis due to an ambiguous and inconclusive use of the label “qualitative methods” and/or restricted comparability with the otherwise pre-dominant interview-based study designs: a) a qualitative research design was stated, but no further information on the approach was given ( n  = 7), b) no explicit distinction was made between qualitative research design and a clinical diagnostic approach ( n  = 4), c) the qualitative approach comprised of additional free text answers in written questionnaires only ( n  = 6), and d) only document analysis or observation was used ( n  = 3). In total, 103 abstracts (1.4% of 7619) were included in the analysis.

Low but increasing use

Since 1998, the number of dissertations applying qualitative methods has continually increased while the total number of dissertations remained stable (between n  = 314 in 2006 and n  = 410 in 1999 and 2008, M (1998–2018) = 362.8, SD = 26.1) (Fig.  1 ). Before 2005 there was yearly not more than one dissertation that used qualitative methods. Since then, the number has steadily raised to more than 10 dissertations per year, equivalent to an increase from 0.28% in 1998 to 3.42% in 2018 of all listed dissertation abstracts per year.

Number of all dissertations and dissertations using qualitative methods per year between 1998 and 2018

General characteristics

Abstracts nearly equally referred to dissertations leading to an MD degree (Dr. med. n  = 57, Dr. med. Dent. n  = 3) and medical science degree (Dr. sc. hum. n  = 43), respectively. The included dissertation abstracts were based in 12 different sub-specialties , most in general practice ( n  = 26), in public health and hygiene ( n  = 27) and medical psychology ( n  = 19); the Dr. med. (dent.) abstracts having a higher share in general practice ( n  = 21) and the Dr. sc. hum. abstracts in public health/hygiene ( n  = 16) (s. Table  1 ).

Most abstracts followed at least roughly the common structure of background, methods, results and conclusion. The length of the abstracts varied between less than one and more than three pages, with most abstracts being one to two pages long; 77 abstracts were written in German and 26 in English.

Study design

About half of the studies used qualitative research methods exclusively ( n  = 47; 60% of Dr. med. (dent.) abstracts, 26% of Dr. sc. hum. abstracts), the other half mixed methods ( n  = 56; 40% of Dr. med. (dent.) abstracts, 74% of Dr. sc. hum. abstracts; Table 1 ). Individual interviews were the most common form of data collection ( n  = 80), followed by group interviews ( n  = 33) and observation ( n  = 11). In total, 23 abstracts indicated the use of a combination of different qualitative methods of data conduction, all of these included individual interviews. For documentation/recording, when reported ( n  = 37), audio recording was used in most cases ( n  = 3).

Little difference regarding method of data conduction were found between pure qualitative and mixed-methods designs. Mixed methods studies rather included physicians ( n  = 21) and used predominantly general content analysis ( n  = 14), when reported; whereas qualitative studies rather included patients ( n  = 28) and used predominantly both content analysis ( n  = 14) and content analysis following Mayring ( n  = 12). Overall incomplete reporting was more common in mixed-method studies ( n  = 41) than qualitative studies ( n  = 26, 55.3%) (see App. 2).

Sample size varied widely: Overall, 67 abstracts provided a sample size. Of those, a median number of 29 people (min-max: 2–136) participated in individual and group interviews. Only in Dr. sc. hum. dissertations using mixed methods, lower median sample sizes were reported for the qualitative part (Md = 22, min-max: 6–110; n  = 17) compared to dissertations using qualitative methods only (medical science ( n  = 7): Md = 31, min-max: 16–50; MD ( n  = 29): Md = 29, min-max: 7–136) and Dr. med. (dent.) dissertations with mixed methods (Md = 30, min-max: 2–62; n  = 14). In individual interviews, when sample size was reported ( n  = 55, 69% of 80), it distributed roughly equally in the ranges of 1–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–50 and above 50 (Md = 25; min-max: 2–110). For the 33 dissertations using group interviews, the number of groups is given in 20 abstracts, the number of participants in 15 abstracts. Between 1 and 24 group interviews were conducted with a median total of 24 participants (min-max: 2–65) (see Table 1 ).

Patients ( n  = 36) and physicians ( n  = 36) were the overall most frequent research participants , followed by other health care professionals ( n  = 17), students ( n  = 11) and relatives of patients ( n  = 7). Other participants ( n  = 16) included: representatives of self-help organizations and other experts, educators such as teachers and policy makers. In 33% ( n  = 31) of the abstracts, more than one participant group was included, 6.8% ( n  = 7) did not specify research participants. While MD dissertations predominantly included physicians ( n  = 27) and patients ( n  = 19), Dr. sc. hum. dissertations included mostly patients ( n  = 17) and other participants ( n  = 10).

Data analysis

For data analysis, if reported ( n  = 57), content analyses were the most common used method ( n  = 42), including the highly deductive approach formulated by Mayring [ 26 ] ( n  = 16), mostly used in MD dissertations ( n  = 14). Among other reported methods ( n  = 15), grounded theory ( n  = 5) was the most common approach; rarely mentioned methods include framework analysis and non-specific analysis combining inductive and deductive approaches. Forty-six abstracts did not provide information on the analysis method used (38.3% of MD abstracts, 53% of medical science abstracts). If reported ( n  = 24), ATLAS.ti ( n  = 14), MAXQDA ( n  = 3) and NVivo ( n  = 3) were mentioned most frequently as qualitative data analysis programs.

In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants: sample size, characteristics, i.e. healthcare professional/patient; data collection and analysis method). Thus, 58% ( n  = 35) of MD dissertation abstracts and 74% ( n  = 32) of Dr. sc. hum. dissertation abstracts had at least one missing information.

The results show a low but increasing use of qualitative research methods in medical dissertations. Abstracts nearly equally referred to dissertations leading to an MD degree and medical science doctorate respectively; half of which were submitted since 2011. Qualitative methods were used in several departments, most frequently in those for general practice, public health and medical psychology mirroring an already known affinity between the objective of certain medical disciplines and perspective qualitative methods [ 27 , 28 ].

About half of the studies used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half mixed methods: While some differences were found, due to short format and sparse information within the abstract a strict differentiation between qualitative approaches alone and combined quantitative and qualitative designs was not made. Little difference according to degree type was observed. This points to a strong shared dissertation culture, that balances and conceals differences in academic training between medical students and graduates from other, quite diverse, disciplines (e.g. from humanities, natural and social sciences) pursuing a doctorate at a medical faculty.

Limited variety in methods used

The results show a strong preference for certain methods in data conduction, research participants and data analysis: Individual and group interviews were predominant as well as content analysis, especially Mayring’s deductive approach. All in all, a limited use of the broad spectrum of qualitative research methods can be observed. Interviews are important to gain insights on actors’ perspective [ 6 ]; however, they have limited information value when it comes to actual processes and practice of health care. To investigates those, additional direct observation would be suitable [ 8 , 9 ]. In group interviews shared norms and opions can be observed, they are not suitable to capture individual perspectices. Group interviews go along with higher time and efforts regarding scheduling, interview guidance and data analysis [ 7 ]. Within the dissertations, documents are rarely used as data within the dissertations, but could be useful readily available documents.

Included research participants were mostly patients and physicians. This might be due to the research questions posed or the availability of participants. However, to reflect the complexity of health care a higher diversity of research questions, expanding participants (e.g. other health care professionals and caregivers) and based on a thorough knowledge of available methods, including qualitative approaches, might be needed.

As for methods of analysis, the results show a predominant use of a form of content analysis, with a strong affinity to quantitative analysis often limited to description forgoing in-depth analysis. As qualitative methods belong to the interpretative paradigm, most qualitative methodologies emphasize inductive analyses (e.g. Grounded Theory) and/or a combination of induction and deduction [ 12 , 29 ]. By using primarily descriptive content analysis the full potential of qualitative research and depth of the data to gain new a insights are thus neglected. Since knowledge about and application of qualitative methods are not part of the medical curriculum, doctoral students lack training in using qualitative methods and grasping the possibilities these methods convey for in-depth original knowledge.

Incomplete reporting

One fundamental principle of good research practice is accurate reporting. For empirical research, reporting on research design and methods is crucial to ensure comparability and reflect reach of research results. Within medicine and other health sciences, while debated [ 30 ], reporting guidelines are increasingly used to guarantee a basic standard. While qualitative research designs differ from clinical and quantitative designs regarding theoretical and methodological background, study aims and research process, rigorous reporting is a shared standard: this includes reporting on data conduction, sampling, participants and data analysis (e.g. COREQ [ 24 ]).

In our study, incomplete reporting regarding research design and methods was common. Especially, information on methods of data analysis was missing in about half of the abstracts reflecting the limited awareness of the plethora of qualitative analysis methods. Additionally, a third of the abstracts did not provide information on sample size. Although the importance of a “sufficient” sample size is controversially discussed, identifying the sources and putting their contributions into perspective is a paramount characteristic of qualitative research [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. All in all, incomplete reporting was common ( n  = 67). Additionally, out of 123 initially identified abstracts, 20 had to be excluded from the analysis as comparability was not given mainly due to the inconclusive use of the term qualitative methods.

Several issues should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. As a case study at one large faculty, which has a strong research orientation, the generalizability of the findings is uncertain. It seems unlikely that the quality of reporting is better in other medical faculties in Germany, but the prevalence of using qualitative methods might be higher. Character and role of the abstracts might not be as apparent as in journal papers, as they serve as a summary of the dissertation and are listed within the online repository databank only. The relation of reporting quality of those abstracts and the full text dissertation or even publication is unknown. Presentation of results was not assessed as information in abstracts were brief and heterogenous. Additionally, insights are limited by the structure of the repository databank itself, i.e. sub-disciplines are combined that sometimes cover distinct research fields or did evolve as separate specialties. All in all, however, the results mirror the critique on the lack of scientific training in medical education [ 17 , 22 , 34 , 35 ] and the want of sufficient reporting in medicine and health science, irrespective of study design [ 36 ].

While recent policies put a strong emphasis on strengthening scientific competences in medical education in Germany [ 15 , 21 , 22 ], especially MD dissertations are only in some degree comparable to dissertation thesis of other disciplines and medical dissertations internationally: In Germany, about 60% of all graduating medical students complete an academic dissertation [ 14 ], which they usually finish parallel to medical school within a full-time equivalent of about a year [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Graduate programs that exclusively dedicate 1 year for pursuing a dissertation are still discussed as innovative [ 35 ]. Additionally, the expertise of supervisors was not assessed. In a recent opinion paper, Malterud et al. [ 37 ] called for supervisors and dissertation committees holding corresponding methodological skills and experience as well as an academic consensus regarding scientific rigour to ensure high quality theses using qualitative methods. Missing standards in supervision and reporting might have led to the observed results in our study.

Qualitative research methods offer a unique scientific benefit to health care, including medicine. Our results show that within dissertation research, the number of dissertations applying qualitative methods has continually increased mirroring an overall trend in health research. To improve reach and results, a broader spectrum of qualitative methods should be considered when selecting research designs, including e.g. (direct) observation, document and analysis strategies, that combine inductive and deductive approaches. Same holds true for including a more diverse body of research participants. More broadly, reporting and academic practice should be improved.

Reporting guidelines can not only help to improve the quality of reporting but also be used as a tool to supervising graduate students steps commonly associated with qualitative research methods. So far, however, reporting guidelines mainly target full and/or published papers. Still, some reporting guidelines for abstracts are already available [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], that could be adapted for dissertation research in health science.

In academic practice, skilled supervision alongside transparent and method-appropriate criteria are the precondition for confident and courageous dissertation research that increases understanding and challenges existing knowledge of health care research. Educational programs strengthening research and reporting skills – within and beyond qualitative methods – should be implemented into medical education more profoundly, at the latest in doctoral training.

Availability of data and materials

The data of the repository databank is semi-public and can be accessed from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. A data extraction table is available in App. 2.Competing interests and funding: We have no conflicts of interest to disclose and no funding to report.

Abbreviations

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research

Doctor medicinae

Doctor medicinae dentariae

Doctor scientiarum humanarum

Medical Doctor

Lewin S, Glenton C. Are we entering a new era for qualitative research? Using qualitative evidence to support guidance and guideline development by the World Health Organization. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):126.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sale JEM, Thielke S. Qualitative research is a fundamental scientific process. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;102:129–33.

Salmon P, Young B. Qualitative methods can test and challenge what we think we know about clinical communication – if they are not too constrained by methodological ‘brands’. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(9):1515–7.

Tugwell P, et al. Systematic Review Qualitative Methods Series reflect the increasing maturity in qualitative methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:vii–viii.

Sibeoni J, et al. A specific method for qualitative medical research: the IPSE (inductive process to analyze the structure of lived experience) approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):216.

Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ. 2006;40(4):314–21.

Wilkinson S. Focus groups in health research: exploring the meanings of health and illness. J Health Psychol. 1998;3(3):329–48.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Vindrola-Padros C, Vindrola-Padros B. Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(4):321–30.

Catchpole K, et al. Framework for direct observation of performance and safety in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(12):1015–21.

Ullrich C, Oetting-Roß C. Qualitative Beobachtung als Methoden in den Gesundheitswissenschaften. In: Niederberger M, Finne E, editors. Forschungsmethoden in der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. Heidelberg: Springer; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Bowen Glenn A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40.

Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz, and L.L. Shaw, Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. [2nd publ.] ed. Chicago guides to writing, editing and publishing. 2011. Chicago [u.a.]: Univ. of Chicago Pr.

Dai S, et al. Evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in master of public health dissertations in China. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):230.

Bundesamt S. Anzahl universitärer Abschlüsse in der human- und Zahnmedizin in Deutschland nach Prüfungsart im Jahr 2018; 2019.

Fakultätentag M. Positionspapier Vermittlung von Wissenschaftskompetenz im Medizinstudium; 2017.

Diez C, Arkenau C, Meyer-Wentrup F. Bearbeitung und Betreuungsqualität medizinischer Dissertationen an der Medizinischen Fakultät Würzburg aus der Sicht von Promovenden des 5. Und 6. Studienjahres. Gesundheitswesen. 2002;64(07):437–43.

Education, W.F.o.M., Basic Medical Eduation: WFME Global Standards for Quality Improvement: Basic Medical Education. 2015.

Pabst R, Park DH, Paulmann V. Die promotion in der Medizin ist besser als ihr Ruf. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2012;137(45):2311–5.

Cursiefen C, Altunbas A. Contribution of medical student research to the Medline-indexed publications of a German medical faculty. Med Educ. 1998;32(4):439–40.

Ziemann E, Oestmann J-W. Publikationen von Doktoranden 1998–2008. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(18):333–7.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

BMBF, Masterplan Medizinstudim 2020 . 2017.

Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung des Medizinstudiums in Deutschland auf Grundlage einer Bestandsaufnahme der humanmedizinischen Modellstudiengänge (Drs. 4017–14), Juli 2014, G.C.o.S.a. Humanities., Editor. 2014.

Mbuagbaw L, et al. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):226.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

O’Brien BC, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.

Mayring, P., Qualitative Content Analysis. 2000. 2000. 1(2).

Sielk M, Brockmann S, Wilm S. Qualitative Forschung - Hineindeuten in oder Abbilden von Wirklichkeit? Z Allg Med. 2004;80(08):334–42.

Jaye C. Doing qualitative research in general practice: methodological utility and engagement. Fam Pract. 2002;19(5):557–62.

Gale NK, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117.

Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1115–7.

Vasileiou K, et al. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):148.

Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies:guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.

Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Weber MB. What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(10):1483–96.

Ratte A, Drees S, Schmidt-Ott T. The importance of scientific competencies in German medical curricula - the student perspective. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):146.

Thimme R, et al. Strukturierte Karrierewege in der Universitätsmedizin. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2019;144(07):489–93.

Zenz M, Zenz J, Grieger M. Erwähnung des Ethikvotums in deutschen medizinischen Dissertationen und Publikationen. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2018;61(7):857–63.

Malterud K, Hamberg K, Reventlow S. Qualitative methods in PhD theses from general practice in Scandinavia. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35(4):309–12.

Cohen JF, et al. STARD for Abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts. BMJ. 2017;358:j3751.

Hopewell S, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e20.

Collins GS, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):55–63.

Bougioukas KI, et al. Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;106:70–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Laura Svensson for assisting in reviewing the abstracts and data extraction. In addition, we would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough review and constructive comments.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Heidelberg Hospital, INF 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

Charlotte Ullrich, Anna Stürmlinger, Michel Wensing & Katja Krug

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CU and KK conceived the idea for this manuscript. CU, KK and AS reviewed, extracted and analyzed the data. KK led the data analysis. CU wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MW provided substantial comments at different stages of the manuscript. CU, KK and MW critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Ullrich .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable. In accordance with the scope and design of this study no formal study protocol was written.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ullrich, C., Stürmlinger, A., Wensing, M. et al. Qualitative research methods in medical dissertations: an observational methodological study on prevalence and reporting quality of dissertation abstracts in a German university. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01186-6

Download citation

Received : 01 October 2020

Accepted : 02 December 2020

Published : 10 December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01186-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical dissertation
• Higher education
• Qualitative research
• Methodological study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Dissertations and research projects

• Sessions and recordings
• Skill guide
• Finding the gap
• Developing research questions
• Epistemology
• Ethical approval
• Methodology and Methods
• Recruiting participants
• Planning your analysis
• Writing your research proposal
• Hypothesis testing
• Reliability and validity
• Approaches to quantitative research
• Developing a theoretical framework
• Reflecting on your position
• Extended literature reviews
• Presenting qualitative data
• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology
• Conclusions
• 5) Working with a supervisor
• e-learning and books
• Quick resources
• SkillsCheck This link opens in a new window
• Review this resource

Qualitative research

In this section on Qualitative Research  you can find out about:

You might also want to consult our other sections on  Planning your research ,  Quantitative research  and  Writing up research , and check out the Additional resources .

• << Previous: Approaches to quantitative research
• Next: Developing a theoretical framework >>
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2024 12:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.shu.ac.uk/researchprojects

Adsetts Library

Collegiate Library

Sheffield Hallam University City Campus, Howard Street Sheffield S1 1WB

Contact us / Live chat

+44 (0)114 225 2222

[email protected]

Accessibility

Legal information

Privacy and GDPR

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Sample Dissertation Abstracts

One of the best ways to determine your fit in a PhD program is familiarizing yourself with the research done by faculty and students in the institute. Students in the Sloan PhD Program study a wide variety of topics and the abstracts below will give you examples of the topics they have chosen to study.

Dissertation Abstracts by Research Group

Selected Dissertation Abstracts by recent PhD Program graduates

BEHAVIORAL & POLICY SCIENCES

• Economic Sociology 
• Institute for Work & Employment Research
• Organization Studies
• Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship, & Strategic Management

ECONOMICS  FINANCE & ACCOUNTING

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE

• Information Technology
• System Dynamics

• Our History
• The Council
• Verna Wright Prize
• The Secretariat
• Key Documents and Policies
• Past Conferences
• Past Keynote Speakers
• Courses and Lectures
• Co-Hosted Events
• External Events
• Research – Presenting Abstracts
• Research Projects
• Research Links
• Research Councils
• Qualitative Research Abstracts
• Fellowships, Studentships and Awards
• Published Abstracts
• Training Awards
• General Links
• Professional Organisations
• University and Research Vacancies
• Newsletters
• Council Reports and Society Forms
• SRR Membership
• Symposia Presentations
• Members Newsletter
• Business Minutes
• Search for:

GUIDANCE ON SUBMISSION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS

General guidance

Authors should refer to the general information and guidelines contained in the Society’s “Guidance for Submission of Abstracts”. The general guidance therein applies to qualitative research abstracts. This includes the maximum permitted limit of 250 words, and the instruction that abstracts should be structured. In keeping with all submissions to the Society, subsequent presentation must reflect and elaborate on the abstract. Research studies or findings not referred to in the abstract should not be presented.

This document contains specific guidance on the content of qualitative research abstracts.

How guidance on content is to be applied by authors and Council.

Council recognises that the nature of qualitative research makes its comprehensive communication within short abstracts a challenge.  Therefore, whilst the key areas to be included within abstracts are set out below, it is recognised that emphasis on each area will vary in different cases, and that not every listed sub-area will be covered.  Certain elements are likely to receive greater attention at the time of presentation than within the abstract.  In particular, presentation of the paper should include sufficient empirical data to allow judgement of the conclusions drawn.

Content of abstracts

• Research question/objective and design: clear statement of the research question/objective and its relevance. Methodological or theoretical perspectives should be clearly outlined.
• Population and sampling: who the subjects were and what sampling strategies were used .
• Methods of data collection: clear exposition of data collection: access, selection, method of collection, type of data, relationship of researcher to subjects/setting (what data were collected, from where/whom, by whom)
• Quality of data and analysis: strategies to enhance quality of data analysis e.g. triangulation, respondent validation; and to enhance validity e.g. attention to negative cases, consideration of alternative explanations, team analysis, peer review panels
• Application of critical thinking to analysis: attention to the influence of the researcher on data collected and on analysis. Critical approach to the status of data collected
• Theoretical and empirical context: evidence that design and analysis take into account and add to previous knowledge
• Conclusions: justified in relation to data collected, sufficient original data presented to substantiate interpretations, reasoned consideration of transferability  to groups/settings beyond those studied

Username or email address  *

Password  *

Remember me Log in

Lost your password?

Qualitative research methods in medical dissertations: an observational methodological study on prevalence and reporting quality of dissertation abstracts in a German university

• December 2020
• BMC Medical Research Methodology 20(1)

• Universität Heidelberg

• University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Helmi Abidin
• Imam Mukhlis
• Arief Noviarakhman Zagladi

• Stefan Nöst

• Thuy Mai Luu

• Brittany Lea
• BMC MED RES METHODOL
• ShuangYang Dai
• Xiaobin Zhou
• Jingao Zhang

• Lehana Thabane

• Laurence Verneuil

• QUAL HEALTH RES

• Mary Beth Weber
• Konstantina Vasileiou

• Susan Thorpe
• Terry Young
• Simon Lewin

• BMC Med Educ

• Tabea Schmidt-Ott
• Robert Thimme

• Leena Bruckner-Tuderman
• J CLIN EPIDEMIOL

• Peter Salmon
• Bridget Young
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

What is qualitative research? Approaches, methods, and examples

Updated 23 Jul 2024

Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve over time. To achieve this, they employ various techniques and data collection methods in qualitative research allowing for a deeper exploration of human experiences. Participant observation, in-depth interviews, and other qualitative methods are commonly used to gather rich, detailed data to uncover key aspects of social behavior and relationships. What is qualitative research? This article will answer this question and guide you through the essentials of this methodology, including data collection techniques and analytical approaches.

Qualitative research definition and significance 

This inquiry method is helpful for learners interested in how to conduct research . It focuses on understanding human behavior, experiences, and social phenomena from the perspective of those involved. What does qualitative mean? It uses non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis, to understand people’s feelings, thoughts, and actions.

Where and when is it used?

Qualitative analysis is crucial in education, healthcare, social sciences, marketing, and business. It helps gain detailed insights into behaviors, experiences, and cultural phenomena. This approach is fundamental during exploratory phases, for understanding complex issues, and when context-specific insights are required. By focusing on depth over breadth, this approach is often employed when researchers seek to explore complex issues, understand the context of a phenomenon, or investigate things that are not easily quantifiable. It uncovers rich, nuanced data essential for developing theories and evaluating programs.

Why is qualitative research important in academia?

• It sheds light on complex phenomena and human experiences that quantitative methods may overlook.
• This method offers contextual understanding by studying subjects in their natural environments, which is crucial for grasping real-world complexities.
• It adapts flexibly to evolving study findings and allows for adjusting approaches as new ideas emerge.
• It collects rich, detailed data through interviews, observations, and analysis, offering a comprehensive view of the exploration topic.
• Qualitative research studies focus on new or less explored areas, helping to identify key variables and generate hypotheses for further study.
• This approach focuses on understanding individuals' perspectives, motivations, and emotions, essential in fields like sociology, psychology, and education.
• It supports theory development by providing empirical data that can create new theories and frameworks (you may read about “What is a conceptual framework?” and learn about other frameworks on the EduBirdie website).
• It improves practices in fields such as education and healthcare by offering insights into practitioners' and clients' needs and experiences.

The difference between qualitative and quantitative studies

Now that you know the answer to “Why is qualitative data important?”, let’s consider how this method differs from quantitative. Both studies represent two main types of research methods. The qualitative approach focuses on understanding behaviors, experiences, and perspectives using interviews, observations, and analyzing texts. These studies are based on reflexivity and aim to explore complexities and contexts, often generating new ideas or theories. Researchers analyze data to find patterns and themes, clarifying the details. However, findings demonstrated in the results section of a research paper may not apply broadly because they often use small, specific groups rather than large, random samples.

Quantitative studies, on the other hand, emphasize numerical data and statistical analysis to measure variables and relationships. They use methods such as surveys, experiments, or analyzing existing data to collect structured information. The goal is quantifying phenomena, testing hypotheses, and determining correlations or causes. Statistical methods are used to analyze data, identifying patterns and significance. Quantitative studies produce results that can be applied to larger populations, providing generalizable findings. However, they may lack the detailed context that qualitative methods offer.

The approaches to qualitative research 

To better understand the answer to “What is qualitative research?”, it’s necessary to consider various approaches within this methodology, each with its unique focus, implications, and functions. 

1. Phenomenology.

This theory aims to understand and describe the lived experiences of individuals regarding a particular phenomenon. 

Peculiarities:

• Focuses on personal experiences and perceptions.
• Seeks to uncover the essence of a phenomenon.
• Uses in-depth interviews and first-person accounts.

Example: Studying the experiences of people living with chronic illness to understand how it affects their daily lives.

2. Ethnography.

The approach involves immersive, long-term observation and participation in particular cultural or social contexts. 

• Provides a deep understanding of cultural practices and social interactions.
• Involves participant observation and fieldwork.
• Researchers often live within the community they are studying.

Example: Observing and participating in the daily life of a rural village to understand its social structure and cultural practices.

3. Grounded theory.

This approach seeks to develop a research paper problem statement and theories based on participant data.

• Focuses on creating new theories rather than analyzing existing ones.
• Uses a systematic process of data collection and analysis.
• Involves constant comparison and coding of data.

Example: Developing a theory on how people cope with job loss by interviewing and analyzing the experiences of unemployed individuals.

4. Case study.

Case studies involve an in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases.

• Provides detailed, holistic insights.
• Can involve individuals, groups, organizations, or events.
• Uses multiple data sources such as interviews, observations, and documents.

Example: One of the qualitative research examples is analyzing a specific company’s approach to innovation to understand its success factors.

5. Narrative research.

This methodology focuses on the stories and personal interpretations of individuals.

• Emphasizes the chronological sequence and context of events.
• Seeks to understand how people make sense of their experiences.
• Uses interviews, diaries, and autobiographies.

Example: Collecting and analyzing the life stories of veterans to understand their experiences during and after military service.

6. Action research.

This theoretical model involves a collaborative approach in which researchers and participants work together to solve a problem or improve a situation.

• Aims for practical outcomes and improvements.
• Involves cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
• Often used in educational, organizational, and community settings.

Example: Teachers collaborating with researchers to develop and test new teaching approaches to improve student engagement.

7. Discourse analysis.

It examines language use in texts, conversations, and other forms of communication.

• Focuses on how language shapes social reality and power dynamics.
• Analyzes speech, written texts, and media content.
• Explores the underlying meanings and implications of language.

Example: Analyzing political speeches to understand how leaders construct and convey their messages to the public.

Each of these examples of qualitative research offers unique tools and perspectives, enabling researchers to delve deeply into complex issues and gain a rich understanding of the issue they study.

Qualitative research methods

Various techniques exist to explore phenomena in depth and understand the complexities of human behavior, experiences, and social interactions. Some key methodologies that are commonly used in different sciences include several approaches.

Unstructured interviews;

These are informal and open-ended, designed to capture detailed narratives without imposing preconceived notions. Researchers typically start with a broad question and encourage interviewees to share their stories freely.

Semi-structured interviews;

They involve a core set of questions that allow researchers to explore topics deeply, adapting their inquiries based on responses received. This method of qualitative research design aims to gather rich, descriptive information, such as understanding what qualities make a good teacher.

Open questionnaire surveys;

They differ from closed-ended surveys in that they seek opinions and descriptions through open-ended questions. They allow for gathering diverse viewpoints from a larger group than one-on-one interviews would permit.

Observation;

It relies on researchers' skills to observe and interpret unbiased behaviors or activities. For instance, in education research, observation might track how students stay focused and manage distractions, recorded through field notes taken during or shortly after the observation.

Keeping logs and diaries;

This involves participants or researchers documenting daily activities or study contexts. Participants might record their social interactions or exercise routines, giving detailed data for later analysis. Researchers may also maintain diaries to document study contexts, helping to explain findings and other information sources.

All types of qualitative research have their strengths for gathering detailed information and exploring the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of exploration topics. Learners often use several methods (triangulation) to confirm their findings and deepen their understanding of complex subjects. If you need assistance choosing the most appropriate method to explore, feel free to contact our website, as we offer essays for sale and support with academic papers. 

Advantages and disadvantages of the qualitative research methodology

This approach has unique strengths, making it valuable in many sciences. One of the primary advantages of qualitative research is its ability to capture participants' voices and perspectives accurately. It is highly adaptable, allowing researchers to modify the technique as new questions and ideas arise. This flexibility allows researchers to investigate new ideas and trends without being limited to set methods from the start. While this approach has many strengths, it also has significant drawbacks. A research paper writer faces practical and theoretical limitations when analyzing and interpreting data. Let’s consider all the pros and cons of this methodology in detail.

Strengths of qualitative research:

• Adaptability: Data gathering and analysis can be adjusted as new patterns or ideas develop, ensuring the study remains relevant and responsive.
• Real-world contexts: Research often occurs in natural conditions, providing a more authentic understanding of phenomena and describing the particularities of human behavior and interactions.
• Rich insights: Detailed analysis of people’s feelings, perceptions, and experiences can be useful for designing, testing, or developing systems, products, and services.
• Innovation: Open-ended responses allow experts to discover new problems or opportunities, leading to innovative ideas and approaches.

Limitations of qualitative research:

• Unpredictability: Real-world conditions often introduce uncontrolled factors, making this approach less reliable and difficult to replicate.
• Bias: The qualitative method relies heavily on the researcher’s viewpoint, leading to subjective interpretations. This makes it challenging to replicate studies and achieve consistent results.
• Limited applicability: Small, specific samples give detailed information but limit the ability to generalize findings to a broader population. Conclusions about the qualitative research topics may be biased and not representative of the wider population.
• Time and effort: Analyzing qualitative data is time-consuming and labor-intensive. While software can help, much of the analysis must be done manually, requiring significant effort and expertise.

So, qualitative methodology offers significant benefits, such as adaptability, real-world context, rich insights, and fostering innovation. However, it also presents challenges like unpredictability, bias, limited applicability, or time- and labor-intensive. Understanding these pros and cons helps researchers make informed decisions about when and how to effectively utilize various types of qualitative research designs in their studies.

Final thoughts

Qualitative research provides a valuable understanding of complicated human experiences and social situations, making it a strong tool in various areas of study. Despite its challenges, such as unreliability, subjectivity, and limited generalizability, its strengths in flexibility, natural settings, and generating meaningful insights make it an essential approach. If you are one of the students looking to incorporate qualitative methodology into their academic papers, EduBirdie is here to help. Our experts can guide you through the process, ensuring your work is thorough, credible, and impactful.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Elizabeth Miller

Seasoned academic writer, nurturing students' writing skills. Expert in citation and plagiarism. Contributing to EduBirdie since 2019. Aspiring author and dedicated volunteer. You will never have to worry about plagiarism as I write essays 100% from scratch. Vast experience in English, History, Ethics, and more.

Related Blog Posts

Discover how to compose acknowledgements in research paper.

This post will help you learn about the use of acknowledgements in research paper and determine how they are composed and why they must be present ...

How to conduct research: best tips from experienced EduBirdie writers

Have you ever got your scholarly task and been unsure how to start research? Are you a first-year student beginning your project? Whatever the case...

Research Papers on Economics: Writing Tips

More and more students nowadays are faced with the problem: How to write an economics paper. Research papers are one of the main results of researc...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

What Is Sociological About Environmental Sociology?: Qualitative Methods in an Era of Rapid Environmental Change

• Published: 23 July 2024

Cite this article

• Max Besbris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2166-0345 1  

This special issue aims to display the breadth and depth of qualitative studies of the environment. In terms of breadth, the work here demonstrates that sociology should have a capacious definition of the environment and treat it with the same scrutiny as other folk concepts. Doing so—with the caveat that individual studies need to carefully operationalize ‘the environment’—reveals how a sociology of the environment has great deal to contribute to our understandings of community, culture, and inequality. In terms of depth, these articles develop new theoretical and empirical areas for environmental sociology, expanding the subfield internationally and bringing it up to date in terms of its relevance for understanding our current moment of pandemic, global warming, and nature fetishization. The outstanding papers collected in this special issue provide manifold lessons, connect to other sociological subfields, and, together, generate a sense of urgency for more qualitative studies of the environment.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Abend, Gabriel. 2023. Words and distinctions for the common good: Practical reason in the logic of social science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Angelo, Hillary. 2021. How green became good: Urbanized nature and the making of cities and citizens . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Arcaya, Mariana, Ethan J. Raker, and Mary C. Waters. 2020. The social consequences of disasters: Individual and community change. Annual Review of Sociology 46: 671–691.

Article   Google Scholar  

Auyero, Javier, and Débora Alejandra. Swistun. 2009. Flammable: Environmental suffering in an Argentine Shantytown . New York: Oxford University Press.

Bell, Michael Mayerfeld. 1994. Childerley: Class, community, and the social experience of nature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Besbris, Max. 2020. Upsold: Real estate agents, prices, and neighborhood inequality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Besbris, Max, and Shamus Khan. 2017. Less theory. More description. Sociological Theory 35 (2): 147–153.

Besbris, Max, John N. Robinson III, and Hillary Angelo 2024. A sociology of real estate: Polanyi, Du Bois, and the relational study of commodified land in a climate-changed future. Annual Review of Sociology 50 . https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-033022-035124

Bhardwaj, Ankit. 2023. The soils of Black Folk: W.E.B. Du Bois’s theories of environmental racialization. Sociological Theory 41 (2): 105–128.

Cronon, William. 1991. Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the Great West . New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Dantzler, Prentiss, Elizabeth Korver-Glenn, and Junia Howell. 2022. Introduction: What does racial capitalism have to do with cities and communities? City & Community 21 (3): 163–172.

Elliott, Rebecca. 2021. Underwater: Loss, flood insurance, and the moral economy of climate change in the United States . New York: Columbia University Press.

Erikson, Kai T. 1976. Everything in its path: Destruction of community in the Buffalo Creek Flood . New York: Simon & Schuster.

Farrell, Justin. 2020. Billionaire wilderness: The ultra-wealthy and the remaking of the American West . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jerolmack, Colin. 2013. The global pigeon . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jerolmack, Colin. 2021. Up to Heaven and down to Hell: Fracking, freedom, and community in an American town . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Klinenberg, Eric. 2002. Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leguizamón, Amalia. 2020. Seeds of power: Environmental injustice and genetically modified soybeans in Argentina . Durham: Duke University Press.

Molotch, Harvey. 1970. Oil in Santa Barbara and power in America. Sociological Inquiry 40 (1): 131–144.

Ren, Xuefei. 2020. Governing urban China and India: Land grabs, slum clearance, and the war on air pollution . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rhodes, Anna, and Max Besbris. 2022a. Soaking the middle class: Suburban inequality and recovery from disaster . New York: Russell Sage Press.

Rhodes, Anna, and Max Besbris. 2022b. Best laid plans: How the middle class make residential decisions post-disaster. Social Problems 69 (4): 1137–1153.

Robinson, I. I. I., N. John, Elizabeth Korver-Glenn, and Max Besbris. 2023. Racial capitalism and social psychology: A note for future research. Social Psychology Quarterly 86 (3): 399–411.

Stiman, Meaghan. 2024. Privileging place: How second homeowners transform communities and themselves . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tavory, Iddo, and Robin Wagner-Pacifici. 2022. Climate change as an event. Poetics 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101600

Taylor, Dorceta E. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist 43 (4): 508–580.

Taylor, Dorceta E. 2016. The rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, privilege, and environmental protection . Durham: Duke University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Claudio Benzecry and Andrew Deener for their ideas and their help with this special issue.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

Max Besbris

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Besbris .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Besbris, M. What Is Sociological About Environmental Sociology?: Qualitative Methods in an Era of Rapid Environmental Change. Qual Sociol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-024-09579-5

Download citation

Accepted : 12 July 2024

Published : 23 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-024-09579-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental sociology
• Climate change
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Childhood obesity and comorbidities-related perspective and experience of parents from black and asian minority ethnicities in england; a qualitative study.

• 1 Teesside University, Middlesbrough, England, United Kingdom
• 2 James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
• 3 University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan
• 4 Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, United States
• 5 Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Select one of your emails

You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:

Notify me on publication

Please enter your email address:

If you already have an account, please login

You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here

We are pleased to submit the manuscript "Childhood Obesity and comorbidities-related perspective and experience of parents from Black and Asian Minority Ethnicities in England; a Qualitative Study". Childhood obesity and associated comorbidities are an important global public health concern, and so it is important to address prevention in high-risk ethnic minority communities through this qualitative research. The study contextualises factors influencing childhood obesity and related comorbidity and pave the way to better inform healthcare preventative interventions, especially lifestyle physical activity and nutrition interventions, associated healthcare policies for high-risk minority ethnic populations. It contributes to matching the government childhood obesity prevention programmes with the perceptions and needs of high-risk ethnic minority communities so that obesity prevention in minority ethnicities are more equitable.

Keywords: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources

Received: 11 Mar 2024; Accepted: 23 Jul 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Obita, Burns, Kuo, Nnyanzi, Barengo and Alkhatib. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Ahmad Alkhatib, University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.