how to write the research environment

Research Environment

• Open Access
• First Online: 28 March 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Lana Barać   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0170-5972 3  

Part of the book series: Collaborative Bioethics ((CB,volume 1))

5356 Accesses

Successful research environment requires joint effort by individual researchers, research groups and the organization. This chapter describes the basic principles and good research practices in the context of the research environment and serves as a guide to good, responsible research for research newcomers – researchers at the beginning of their scientific career. In this chapter we will help you navigate the organizational pathway to doing good research. The first step to understanding your rights, obligations and responsibilities in research is knowing that they exist. This chapter offers an introductory level orientation to codes, rules and regulations but also serves as a guide on how to identify whether your organization goes above and beyond offering guidance and assistance regarding research integrity or whether it provides a bare minimum or even nothing at all, and who/what you can turn to in the latter case. Furthermore, this chapter also describes the responsibilities that you as a researcher have towards the organisation regarding the importance of maintaining research integrity, so that you are aware of your accountability and the possible consequences if you disregard organizational responsibility for responsible research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Research Integrity: Responsible Conduct of Research

Research Integrity and Hidden Value Conflicts

Research Assessments Should Recognize Responsible Research Practices. Narrative Review of a Lively Debate and Promising Developments

• Research climate
• Research culture
• Research ethics structures
• Research integrity structures

What This Chapter Is About

Successful research environment requires joint effort by individual researchers, research groups and the organization. This chapter describes the basic principles and good research practices in the context of research environment and serves as a guide to good, responsible research for research newcomers – researchers at the beginning of their scientific career. In this chapter we will help you navigate the organizational pathway to doing good research. The first step to understanding your rights, obligations and responsibilities in research is knowing that they exist. This chapter offers an introductory level orientation to codes, rules and regulations but also serves as a guide on how to identify whether your organization goes above and beyond offering guidance and assistance regarding research integrity or whether it provides a bare minimum or even nothing at all, and who/what you can turn to in the latter case. Furthermore, this chapter also describes the responsibilities that you as a researcher have towards the organisation regarding the importance of maintaining research integrity, so that you are aware of your accountability and the possible consequences if you disregard organizational responsibility for responsible research.

Case Scenario: Research Environment and Research Integrity

This hypothetical scenario was adapted from a narrative concerning the links between research environments and research integrity. The case scenario was developed by the Members of The Embassy of Good Science and is available at the Embassy of Good Science . The case below is published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, version 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0).

After 6 months of working as a novice researcher in a research lab at a university school, you meet up with a colleague who graduated with you and is now working as a novice researcher in a commercial research organization. She tells you that she may have encountered a potential research misconduct concerning intellectual property. She knew what she had to do because the company is very committed to making sure all employees are fully informed about all existing rules and regulations. Her action prevented the misconduct. That conversation made you think that you were never been briefed or informed in detail about rules and regulations regarding research when you signed your employment contract with your organization. You heard your mentor casually mention “standard rules of conduct in research,” expecting you to know what they are. The day after your meeting with your colleague, you check your school’s webpages for information on research integrity. Although there is no explicit mention of research integrity, your University’s website refers to its own code of conduct as well as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Furthermore, a university-wide academic integrity complaints procedure and a research integrity committee are mentioned but details of which, however, cannot be found on the university’s public webpages. After talking to your fellow novice researchers, you realize that they too are uncertain about whether your school has written guidelines for research integrity. You also realize that they feel pressurized to generate more and more research outputs and that insecurity, linked to short-term contracts and scarce opportunities for professional advancement, means that they perceive the incentives to succeed in research and academia as outweighing the incentives to comply with the norms of good research practices. They not only feel that your school does not adequately promote research integrity but that that pressure comes within the organization, also as a result of the culture of “ publish or perish ” After talking to them you realise that there is more to this problem than just ignorance or integrity issues with individual novice researchers and that their views could indicate an environmental problem in academia.

Questions for You

In light of this case scenario, what do you think which person(s) or groups should be responsible for the early-career researchers’ general lack of knowledge concerning the university’s research integrity guidelines, codes of conduct and complaints procedures? What are the reasons for your answer?

In what ways could a research organization make its research integrity standards, guidelines and processes more visible to its researchers, especially early-career researchers? What initiatives should be promoted in a research organization in order to engage early-career researchers with research integrity standards, guidelines and processes?

Thinking about the ways in which your organization currently engages early-career researchers with research integrity standards, guidelines and processes, what could be done to improve such engagement at the level of your organization and the level of your department or laboratory?

The Responsibilities of the Organization: Above and Beyond, or the Bare Minimum?

Good research practice from the european code of conduct for research integrity:.

Research institutions and organisations promote awareness and ensure a prevailing culture of research integrity .

When starting at a new job in a new research organization you have to understand that an organization is a living organism – a system with organized structure that functions as an individual entity and is, as all organisms are, prone to constant change. One change that has been having a huge momentum in Europe in recent years is the initiative to encourage activities that show commitment of organizations to make research integrity (RI) and responsible research in general as a top priority. Empowering sound and verifiable research and fostering a research integrity culture, thus creating a proper research environment, is now empowered by embedding these principles as requirements in EU funding schemes. As research environment is a dimension that needs to be considered by all involved stakeholders, activities conducted in order to foster good research practices and a culture of research integrity will impact researchers at all levels.

When we talk about organization as a system, the terms organizational climate and organizational culture are sometimes used interchangeably or considered as complementary constructs. The two terms are different. Organizational climate is usually defined as shared perceptions of policies, practices and procedures experienced by the employees, as well as the behaviours the employees perceive as rewarding. It is considered to be the measurable manifestation of organizational culture , which is defined as the system of basic assumptions, deep values and beliefs that are prevalent in the organization. Organizational culture is something that has to be built, maintained and nurtured by supportive environment.

As a part of organizational culture, research integrity has become an integral part of a university’s mission, vision and strategy. For example; universities in France will, in the near future, in what seems to be the first national initiative of its kind, go as far as requiring Ph.D. recipients to take an integrity oath on the day they successfully defend their thesis. Research integrity is also dependent on human factors – collegiality, openness, reflection, shared responsibility and work satisfaction are vital elements of a successful working environment. As a novice researcher, you should try, from the very beginning of your career, to comply with the highest standards of ethics and integrity in the performance of your research.

How can you figure out the ethical landscape at the very start of your career? The first step to understanding your rights, obligations and responsibilities is knowing that they exist .

Rules, codes and regulations can be created by the organization itself but also by national or international bodies. They can have different names and vary in scope, but they are always a written set of instructions issued by an organization. Depending on the scope of action, codes can cover issues prescribed by legal regulations such as: human subject’s protection, animal care, intellectual property and confidentiality, legality and mechanisms to identify and procedure for reporting and dealing with research misconduct. Other than binding legal issues, codes can also cover fundamental principles of research which serve organisations in creating and preserving an environment for responsible research. Fundamental principles presented by the most widely recognized and accepted documents – European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (All European Academies 2017) and Fostering Integrity in Research (US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017), might not be identical in the naming of the principles but the meaning of the principles in RI perspective is similar (Table 1.1 ).

Not all research or academic organizations are as big or as well developed to have the resources to promptly and adequately inform you about all rules and obligations regarding research. That does not mean you are not required to follow them or that your rights are not protected by them. Organizational guides and codes should be easily accessible on the organization’s webpages and/or intranet. You should be provided with adequate training, tailored to the research discipline and the type of organization, and briefed about standard rules of conduct in research. Bear in mind that the organizational support structure is usually proportional to the size and complexity of the organization. Apart from having binding documents about responsible research, your organization should have established channels to facilitate an open dialogue at and between all levels; from management and senior researchers to novice researchers and other members of staff. Ideally, your organization should, apart from the standard rules and regulations, develop and implement a research integrity promotion plan (RIPP). This is a document that describes, on a general level, how the organization promotes research integrity and which concrete methods are employed or are being developed to foster research integrity and to deal with allegations of breaches of research integrity. Procedures to increase transparency of research investigation procedure and safe and effective whistle-blowing channels and the protection of alleged perpetrators should also be implemented in line with the legal principle of the presumption of innocence – someone accused of research misconduct is considered innocent until proven guilty.

When navigating the research environment, it is always advisable to consider the human factor. Some organizations are very organized. Some are not. Even though an organization may be committed to following the prescribed rules, do not expect to be given a clear and user-friendly version of these rules upon arrival. Some organizations have rules and regulations because they had to comply with national or international regulations. Other organizations have them because the management is devoted to actively promoting responsible research. Some organizations are understaffed, so the lack of organizational documents may not necessarily reflect the moral of the organization. In brief, even if your organization does not have instructions for the new employees written on a (virtual) bulletin board, that does not mean that they do not exist, so no matter whether you were briefed or not these rules apply to you and you should be governed by those rules.

Here is some advice for you on how to navigate responsible research environment in your organization:

Always get familiar with existing laws, codes and regulations in the organization and country where you work. If you are a member of a professional organization or if you are professionally bound to the code of ethics of your profession, check whether the professional code is aligned with that of your organisation. Some organizations may provide a checklist with sources and links to different guidelines and rules of procedure for good research practice available online. Do not forget to get familiar with international principles and EU standards such as The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity , principles prescribed for different professions (e.g., The Declaration of Helsinki or Convention on Biological Diversity ) and national guidelines, but first and foremost to the documents and guidance provided by your organization.

Consider that different views of research ethics around the world reflect differences in culture and legal frameworks, which can lead to differences in regulations. For example, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has a very expansive definition of personal information that may warrant protection, whereas in the United States (US), there is a narrower (and often domain-specific) characterization of privacy-sensitive information. Even within the EU, there are differences among EU member countries – the examples are different laws on stem-cell research and human embryos. Differences in regulations unfortunately may lead to ethics dumping – the practice of researchers trained in cultures with rigorous ethical standards to go and conduct research in countries with laxer ethical rules and oversight, in order to circumvent the regulations, policies, or processes that exist in their home countries.

Keep in mind that codes and regulations change and can evolve. For example, The Nuremberg Code; which is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation was created by the US vs. Brandt et al. court case, as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the World War 2. The core elements of the Nuremberg Code are the requirements for voluntary and informed consent, a favourable risk/benefit analysis, and the right to withdraw from a study without consequences. That standard was confirmed in 1964, when the WMA’s Declaration of Helsinki was endorsed and again specified that experiments involving human beings needed the informed consent of participants. The Declaration of Helsinki has been updated overe the years, so make sure that you consult its latest version. Another example is the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study , funded by the US Public Health Service. The study was conducted between 1932 and 1972 at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama to evaluate the natural history of untreated syphilis in African American males. The study was conducted for 40 years without ethical review and denied participants the effective treatment for this curable disease. The study became a milestone in the history of US research regulations, as it was conducted without ethical re-evaluation in spite of both The Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki being accepted and established as a standard during the study. The aftermath of the public disclosure of the Tuskegee study led to the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research and the National Research Act that requires the establishment of institutional review boards (IRBs) at institutions receiving federal support.

Codes and regulations can also change due to scientific advancements that lead to new fields of research (e.g., the emergence of experimental psychology) or new technologies (e.g., gene editing, artificial intelligence). The changes can also come in response to changes in cultural values and behavioural norms that evolve over time (e.g., perceptions of privacy and confidentiality).

Consider emerging ethics topics , even if they are not listed or mentioned in current codes of your organization, such as bystander risk (impacts of research on other people; e.g. genetic testing and genetic research, second-hand exposure to a contagious disease) big data and open science (concerns about the potential to compromise privacy), and citizen science (involving community participation in science, allowing the research population to become researchers).

Research institutions and organisations demonstrate leadership in providing clear policies and procedures on good research practice and the transparent and proper handling of violations.

Knowing, understanding and using existing codes and regulations for good research is important and useful, but there may be times when you are in doubt about how what is written in a code translates into real life. Therefore, it is important to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply different research rules and how to make decisions to act ethically and responsibly in different situations or at least know who to turn to when in doubt . To put it simply: pure existence of the codes does not make an ethical environment. Or, in words of Aristotle: “One swallow does not a summer make.”

If codes, rules and regulations are the foundation of research integrity culture, building strong pillars to rest upon, establishing research ethics structures is the next crucial step for organizations to ensure proper research environment.

Different organizations may have different supportive mechanisms to ensure that researchers adhere to research ethics and integrity requirements. Depending on the size and the type of the organization, key organizational bodies and staff dealing with research ethics and integrity might quite vary in name and scope of work. It is important to understand that, depending on type of research organisation, you may encounter organisational bodies (or individuals) with various scope of activities regarding research ethics and integrity. This may seem confusing at first, as the concepts of ethics and integrity may seem intertwined and actually, for the most part, they are. Research ethics (RE) is the term that encompassed fundamental moral principles and research integrity (RI) is the quality of having moral principles, defined as active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. Both of them are a necessary part of responsible conduct of research.

Ideally, your organisation will have all necessary structures, processes, and dedicated and adequately trained staff to uphold best research practices and standards, and deal with procedures relevant to the various research areas and disciplines within the organisation. Listed below are some of the common research ethics and integrity bodies (names might vary). If there is only one of these at your organisation, the scope of their responsibilities is probably wider and you can still contact them regarding any doubt and insecurity you might have about responsible research.

Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board is probably the most common body at academic and research organizations, because it has the longest history. Research Ethics Committees were developed after the World War 2, particularly in response to The Nuremberg Trials, as bodies responsible for oversight of medical or human research studies. The role of an Ethics Committee is to scrutinise research proposals and ensure that the proposed research adequately addressed all relevant ethics issues. This means that they make sure that proposed research protocols protect rights, safety, dignity and well-being of participants, that research protocols involving animals follow the highest animal care standards and that they facilitate and promote ethical research that is of potential benefit to participants, science and society. In smaller organisations that do not necessarily have other bodies, the role of the Ethics Committee would also be to facilitate and promote research integrity and good research practices, to have mechanisms to identify and procedure for reporting and dealing with allegations of breaches of research integrity (research misconduct).

Board/Office/ Commission for Research Integrity is a body that promotes responsible research conduct, serves as a knowledge base for questions regarding research integrity and research misconduct, informs on policies and procedures in and outside of the organization, handles allegations of research misconduct and conducts investigations, advises on administrative action and also responds to allegations of retaliation against whistle-blowers. It is responsible for providing advice for researchers on how to adhere to responsible research practices, usually through guidelines, checklists and other documents in which good research practices are presented. The organisational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary depending on the organisational or national regulations. For example, the Office for Research Integrity in the US is a governmental body that has monitoring and oversight role to ensure that researchers and organisations which receive federal funding for health research comply with existing regulations; it offers support to further good practice research and promote integrity and high ethical standards, as well as to have robust and fair methods to address poor research practices and misconduct.

Another individual position you may encounter at your organisation is the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) , a professional with a complex role. An organisation’s RIO promotes responsible research, conducts research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals with allegations of or evidence of possible research misconduct. The details of an RIO’s job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many. For example, in US organisations, a RIO serves as the liaison between the federal Office for Research Integrity and the organisation of the researchers. In the EU, countries have different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. Some countries do not have such bodies, and their role is most often taken by Ethics Committees.

Your organisation may have a Research Integrity Ombudsperson or Confidential Advisor on Scientific Integrity or Research Integrity Advisor . The aim of such an advisor is to promote fair, non-discriminatory and equitable treatment related to research integrity within the organisation and improve the overall quality of the research working environment. Such a position should be well known in the organisation, and there should be a low threshold for contacting this person. Researchers who experience research integrity dilemmas or have come into an integrity-related conflict should be able to discuss their case with the ombudsperson in a strictly confidential manner. The function of the ombudsperson should be clearly separated from a formal research integrity committee or ethics committee, so that it is clear to researchers that contacting the ombudsperson does not imply a formal registration of an allegation but a confidential and informal assistance in resolving research work-related conflicts, disputes and grievances (including, but not limited to complaints/appeals of researchers regarding conflicts between supervisor(s) and early-stage researchers).

Research institutions and organisations support proper infrastructure for the management and protection of data and research materials in all their forms (encompassing qualitative and quantitative data, protocols, processes, other research artefacts and associated metadata) that are necessary for reproducibility, traceability and accountability.

Even as an early-career researcher you probably realise that, while doing research, dealing with a fair amount of different types of data is inevitable. Ten years ago the Science journal polled their peer reviewers from the previous year on the availability and use of research data, and, about half of those polled stored their data only in their laboratories. If you had walked in any type of research organisation 10 years ago you would have had probably been briefed about keeping your lab notebook records and advised about keeping your data somewhere other than your lab desktop computer. Today, when we talk about data management, we go well beyond keeping your lab or research notebook in order. While maintaining a lab notebook is still essential for anybody performing research as a document of completed work so that research can be replicated and validated; or a legal document to prove intellectual property/invention, data management on an organisational level entails much more . It comprises the infrastructure (technology, services and staff support), training for researchers, and policies on data management (DMPs). Therefore, you should expect from your organisation to provide instructions and policies regarding data curation (repositories), management, use, access, publishing, and sharing. Regarding the technology for data management, your organisation should provide appropriate storage media that enables collecting, organizing, protecting, storing, and sharing data. It should also inform you about available data repositories, networks and different authentication systems. Research organisations should make DMPs easily accessible and organisations’ websites should provide extensive information about the concept of data sharing in general, as well as detailed information on DMP requirements and how to comply with them. Services and staff support for data management are highly dependent on the amount of funding and size of an organisation because the amount of work and time involved in these processes is extensive and costly. Some organisations have whole departments and others at best a single person for data management.

In 2019, Science Europe released its Practical Guide to the International Alignment of Research Data Management , and, as a follow-up, compiled the document to showcase some best practices. The document also demonstrated the variability of data management processes in different organisations. Although the readiness to develop DMPs can differ according to discipline, most research funders require researchers to include a DMP in their project proposals. You should expect from your organisation to have in place the structures and procedures to facilitate data management and curation procedures that are aligned with FAIR principles, which say that data should be F indable, A ccessible, I nteroperable, and R eusable. Bear in mind that researchers’ knowledge about research data management could be limited in countries and organisations where open science policies are not well developed. This leads to misunderstandings about the need to store and archive data. For detailed guidance on data practices and management throughout the lifecycle of research data and instructions to preparation of data management plans (DMPs) see Chap. 5 .

Research institutions and organisations reward open and reproducible practices in hiring and promotion of researchers.

No matter whether you have been in research for some time or you are a novice researcher, you have probably heard the catchphrase “ publish or perish !” because it has been uttered in whisper by stressed and burned-out researchers all over the world for years, putting pressures on individual integrity and potentially fostering practices harmful to scientific research. Publish or perish culture thrives on metrics (number of articles published and impact factors of journals) but fails to adequately take societal and broader impact into account . Some aspects of research are indeed quantifiable and cannot be and will not be ignored, but recent efforts towards more inclusive evaluation scheme of research and researchers could be a “game-changer”, meaning that yes, you are still required to publish, but the scientific efforts that translate better to a broader community will not be ignored.

When it comes to hiring and promotion in research, the need for transparency should be self-explanatory, but what does promoting open practices mean in reality? Geographically speaking, Europe might be ahead of the curve in endorsing and implementing changes as the new framework programme Horizon Europe makes Open Science mandatory throughout the programme and includes Open Innovation as one of three framework pillars. What does this mean for you? Although the attitude and the level of commitment of the organisation toward endorsing open science principles could vary and very much depend on the human factor, there is no reason for you not to be aware of the change to come and strive to fulfil the general idea of quality . Producing quality science would imply producing substantive, impactful science , science that reaches broader audience and addresses valuable questions, but is also reliable enough to build upon. This mean that evaluation and appraisal procedures may assess a researcher’s contribution to addressing societal needs and publishing all research completely and transparently, regardless of whether the results were positive or negative. This would also imply implementing open research practices and embedding these skills in training of early-career researchers, making preliminary results and final results available to the general public, potential users and the research community, in order to facilitate broader assessment and accountability of research.

There are also indications that the EU is moving towards a structured CV which would include Responsible Indicators for Assessing Scientists (RIAS), and other related information. For example; the department of psychology at LMU München added a paragraph to a professorship job advertisement which asks for an open science statement from the candidates: “Our department embraces the values of open science and strives for replicable and reproducible research. For this goal we support transparent research with open data, open material, and pre-registrations. Candidates are asked to describe in what way they already pursued and plan to pursue these goals.” Another example is University of Liège , where depositing papers in the repository is now the sole mechanism for submitting them to be considered when researchers underwent performance review.

Check whether your organisation has procedures related to the publication and communication of research results, such as preregistration, preprints, and online repositories, the organisational approach to open access, FAIR data curation, expectations about the use of reporting guidelines, procedures for avoiding predatory journals, strategies for responsible peer review practices, and mechanisms to support and acknowledge public communication of research findings. Also, check whether your organisation is ahead of the curve in promoting Open Science (Fig. 1.1 ) check for procedures and practices through the organisation’s own website or other established platforms on organisational or national level, check whether your organisation has signed any declaration relevant to Open Science .

Core principles of Open Science. For details, see the FOSTER project

The Responsibilities of the Researcher

Ask not what your organisation can do for you – ask what you can do for your organisation.

While The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC RI) provides general guidance for good research practices and serves as a framework for self-regulation, the document that details your role, responsibilities and entitlements as a researcher is The European Charter for Researchers . The Charter is a set of general principles and requirements that addresses all researchers in the European Union at all stages of their career, covers all fields of research and takes into account the multiple roles that researchers can have.

Being a researcher is highly related to context and not defined only by job positions, formal qualifications level of education or by seniority at work. According to The Frascati definition ; Researchers are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge . They conduct research and improve or develop concepts, theories, models, techniques instrumentation, software or operational methods. The tasks performed depend on job characteristics and personal strengths but have to be related to research and innovation. Activities of a researcher are many, but first and foremost entail: conducting and evaluating research and innovation, applying for research funding, managing projects and teams, managing, sharing and transferring the generated knowledge (including through scholarly communication, science communication to society, knowledge management for policy, and knowledge transfer to industry) and higher education teaching.

As an early-career researcher, you should keep in mind that everything you do reflects upon your organisation . So be sure to comply with the highest values and ethical standards and aim at excellence. Even as a novice researcher, at a beginning of your career be aware that your organisation will treat you as a responsible adult and will hold you accountable . Also, depending on the applicable rules, your organisation might be held accountable for your wrongdoing, so, even if you are there for a brief amount of time (post-doctoral or project-based position) remember that you are a part of the research environment and are expected to contribute to a positive, fair and stimulating research culture.

Science is by definition a joint endeavour and you should learn to accept responsibility because that is what being accountable entails. Accountability refers to an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions, meaning that, when individuals are accountable, they understand and accept the consequences of their actions for the areas in which they assume responsibility. Remember that you, as an employee, have contractual and legal obligations. That basically means that you are liable in case of breach of contract and you have to adhere to such regulations by delivering the required results (e.g. thesis, publications, patents, reports, new products development, etc), as set out in the terms and conditions of the contract or equivalent document. You should be familiar with the strategic goals, seek all necessary approvals before starting your research or accessing the resources provided. You should, at all times, keep a professional attitude . This included maintaining a professional etiquette at workplace – respectful and courteous demeanour towards colleagues and respect in the sense of responsibilities (e.g. informing your supervisor if you are not able to meet deadlines).

As a researcher, you should, first and foremost, focus your research for the good of mankind and for expanding the frontiers of scientific knowledge. You should be guaranteed the freedom of thought and expression , and the freedom to identify methods by which problems are solved, according to recognized ethical principles and practices. But, bear in mind that there is a difference between using research freedom and abusing it. You should, by all means, recognize the limitations to this freedom that could arise as a result of particular research circumstances or operational constraints (e.g. for budgetary or infrastructural reasons or, especially in the industrial sector, for reasons of intellectual property protection). Such limitations should not contravene recognized ethical principles and practices in research. When it comes to ethical principles , you should adhere to the recognized ethical practices and fundamental ethical principles appropriate to your discipline, as well as to ethical standards defined in different national, sectoral or organisational codes of ethics. It is highly recommended to conduct ethics self-assessment at the very beginning of planning your research. Ethics self-assessment helps getting your research protocol ethics-ready , as it may give rise to binding obligations that may later on be checked through ethics checks and reviews. Consider that ethics issues arise in many areas of research and, as of recently, major scientific journals require researchers to provide ethics committee approval before publishing research articles. You should also adopt safe working practices, in line with national legislation, including taking the necessary precautions by preparing proper back-up strategies.

As we mentioned before, Open Science practices should be the norm, especially when performing publicly funded research, as they improve the quality, efficiency, responsiveness of research and trust in science. You should guarantee open access to research publications and research data and foster innovation in sharing research knowledge as early as possible in the research process, through adequate infrastructures and tools. You should ensure, in compliance with your contractual arrangements, that the results of your research are disseminated and exploited. Be public and open about your research . There are, of course, legitimate reasons to restrict access to certain data sets (for instance in order to protect the privacy of research subjects) so be guided by the principle “ As open as possible, as closed as necessary” . Ensure that your research activities are made known to society at large in such a way that they can be understood by non-specialists, thereby improving public understanding of science. Direct engagement with the public will help researchers better understand public interest in priorities for science and technology and also their concerns.

You should seek to continually improve yourself by regularly updating and expanding your skills and competencies. This may be achieved by a variety of means including, but not restricted to, formal training, workshops, conferences and e-learning.

Do not be afraid to diversify your research career , as research community is diverse in talents and expertise and can produce a wide range of research outputs (from scholar publications to scientific advice for policy makers, science communication to the public, higher education teaching, knowledge transfer to industry, and many others). Explore different career paths within the research profession, so that your talent finds the best place to produce richer research results.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lana Barać .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic

If You Want to Learn More

The embassy of good science.

Case scenario – Research Environments and Research Integrity

Guidelines – Creating a map of the normative framework informing and governing the state of Good Science

Education – Literature and tools in research integrity and ethics

Published Articles

Ashkanasy N, Wilderom C, Peterson M (2011) The handbook of organizational culture and climate. Sage Publications, New York

Fischer BA (2006) A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophr Bull 32(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj005

Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman SN (2018) Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol 16(3):e2004089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089

Qiao H (2018) A brief introduction to institutional review boards in the United States. Pediatr Investig 2(1):46–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ped4.12023

Qin J (2013) Infrastructure, standards, and policies for research data management. In: Sharing of scientific and technical resources in the era of big data: the proceedings of COINFO 2013. Science Press, Beijing, pp 214–219

Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH (2013) Organizational climate and culture. Ann Rev Psychol 64(1):361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809

Ščepanović R, Labib K, Buljan I, Tijdink J, Marušić A (2021) Practices for research integrity promotion in research performing organisations and research funding organisations: a scoping review. Sci Eng Ethics 27(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1

Science Staff (2011) Special collection. Dealing with data. Challenges and opportunities. Science 331:692–693. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.331.6018.692

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://nap.nationalacademies.org/21896

Zohar DM, Hofmann DA (2012) Organizational culture and climate. In: Kozlowski SWJ (ed) The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 643–666

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity - framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings. ECoC is a reference document for research integrity for all EU-funded research projects and as a model for organisations and researchers across Europe. All European Academies (ALLEA). (2017). https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/

The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement – Working with research integrity; guidance for research performing organisations

SOPs4RI Toolbox – Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines that Research Performing and Funding Organisations can use to develop their own Research Integrity Promotion Plans

LERU – The League of European Research Universities (LERU) is a prominent advocate for the promotion of basic research at European research universities comprising of League of European Research Universities 23 leading universities pushing the frontiers of innovative research

Science Europe – Implementing Research Data Management Policies Across Europe: Experiences from Science Europe Member Organisations

Ask Open Science – Hosted by Bielefeld University, discussion (Q & A) on Open Science

The LSE Impact Blog – Six principles for assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

The European Charter for Researchers – The European Charter for Researchers is a set of general principles and requirements which specifies the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Barać, L. (2023). Research Environment. In: Marusic, A. (eds) A Guide to Responsible Research. Collaborative Bioethics, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_1

Published : 28 March 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-22411-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-22412-6

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2002.

Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

3 The Research Environment and Its Impact on Integrity in Research

To provide a scientific basis for describing and defining the research environment and its impact on integrity in research, it is necessary to articulate a conceptual framework that delineates the various components of this environment and the relationships between these factors. In this chapter, the committee proposes such a framework based on an opensystems model, which is often used to describe social organizations and the interrelationships between and among the component parts. This model offers a general framework that can be used to guide the specification of factors both internal and external to the research organization that is relevant to understanding integrity in research.

After its review of the literature, the committee found that there is little empirical research to guide the development of hypotheses regarding the relationships between environmental factors and the responsible conduct of research. Thus, the committee drew on more general theoretical and research literature to inform its discussion. Relevant literature was found in the areas of organizational behavior and processes, ethical cultures and climates, moral development, adult learning and educational practices, and professional socialization. 1

• THE OPEN-SYSTEMS MODEL

The open-systems model depicts the various elements of a social organization; these elements include the external environment, the organizational divisions or departments, the individuals comprising those divisions, and the reciprocal influences between the various organizational elements and the external environment (Ashforth, 1985; Beer, 1980; Daft, 1992; Harrison, 1994; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Schneider and Reichers, 1983). The underlying assumptions of the open-systems model and its various elements are as follows (Harrison, 1994):

External conditions influence the inputs into an organization, affect the reception of outputs from an organization's activities, and directly affect an organization's internal operations.

All system elements and their subcomponent parts are interrelated and influence one another in a multidirectional fashion (rather than through simple linear relationships).

Any element or part of an organization can be viewed as a system in and of itself.

There is a feedback loop whereby the system outputs and outcomes are used as system inputs over time, with continual change occurring in the organization.

Organizational structure and processes are in part determined by the external environment and are influenced by the dynamics between and among organizational members.

An organization's success depends on its ability to adapt to its environment, to tie individual members to their roles and responsibilities within the organization, to conduct its processes, and to manage its operations over time.

• THE OPEN-SYSTEMS MODEL OF RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS

Figure 3-1 shows the application of the open-systems model to the research environment, which can include public and private institutions, such as research universities, medical schools, and independent research organizations. As noted above, any element or part of an organization can be viewed as a system in and of itself. For research organizations, then, this includes not only the institution itself, but also any of its departments, divisions, research groups, and so on. Figure 3-1 illustrates the research environment as a system that functions within an external environment, whereas Figure 3-2 depicts the specific factors within the external environment and their influence on the research organization. These factors within the external environment are discussed later in this section.

Open-systems model of the research organization. This model depicts the internal environmental elements of a research organization (white oval), showing the relationships among the inputs that provide resources for organizational functions, the structures (more...)

Environmental influences on integrity in research that are external to research organizations. The external-task environment includes all of the organizations and conditions that are directly related to an organization's main operations and technologies. (more...)

An organization's internal environment consists of a number of key elements—specifically, the inputs that provide resources for organizational functions, the organizational structure and processes that define an organization's setup and operations, and the outputs and outcomes that are the results of an organization's activities. The system is dynamic, and, as indicated by the feedback arrow in Figure 3-1 , outputs and outcomes affect future inputs and resources. However, all of these components exist within the context of an organization's culture and specific climate dimensions—that is, the prevailing norms and values that inform individuals within the organization about acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. With respect to the committee's focus on integrity in research, the ethical dimension of the organizational culture and climate is very important.

Structurally, organizations are compartmentalized into various subunits, including work groups or divisions (the research group or team), along with other defined sets of organizational activities and responsibilities (e.g., programs that educate members about the responsible conduct of research, institutional review boards [IRBs], and mechanisms for disclosing and managing conflicts of interest). The operation of these programs and their overall effectiveness influence researchers' perceptions of the organization's ethical climate. Individuals within an organization exist both within and across these defined groups and sets of activities. Given this, it is important to differentiate between an organizational level of analysis (e.g., the research university, medical school, and independent research organization) vis-à-vis the group level of analysis (e.g., the research group or team) and the individual level of analysis (e.g., the individual scientist or researcher).

Inputs and Resources

In its examination of research environments, the committee focused on two input and resource factors of importance: the levels and sources of funding for scientific research, and the characteristics of human resources. These inputs and resources are obtained from an organization's external environment and are used in the production of an organization's outputs.

The research funding that an organization receives is distributed to research groups or teams and to individual scientists. Funding levels may increase and decrease over the years, both for the organization as a whole and for individual research groups. Just as the overall level of funding available for research within society affects the scientific enterprise as a whole, the level of funding coming into a particular research organization or research team also affects behavior.

The impacts that the level of funding and the competition over funding have on the responsible conduct of research are not clearly understood. There is some limited evidence that in highly competitive environments, individuals with a high “competitive achievement striving” are at risk for engaging in misconduct, particularly when they are faced with situations in which their expectations for success cannot be reached by exerting additional effort (Heitman, 2000; Perry et al., 1990). Encouraging a high level of individual integrity in research, despite vigorous competition for funding, presents a significant challenge for research organizations.

Human Resources

The human resources available to a research organization are also important to the analysis of integrity in research. The background characteristics of scientists coming into a research organization influence its structure and processes as well as its overall culture and climate, and these factors, in turn, influence the responsible conduct of research by individual scientists. Scientists (whether they are trainees, junior researchers, or senior researchers) entering into a research organization will have competing professional demands (e.g., research, teaching, practice, and professional service), and thus there are likely to be conflicting commitments. The dynamics of these competing demands and conflicting commitments change as individual scientists become integrated into the research organization, taking on specific roles and responsibilities.

Also, scientists enter into an organization with various educational and cultural backgrounds. They have different conceptions of the collaborative and competitive roles of the scientist, different abilities to interpret the moral dimensions of problems, and different capacities to reason about and effectively resolve ethical problems. These individual differences will influence organizational behavior, in general, and research conduct, in particular, in complex and dynamic ways.

Given this variation in human resource input into the research organization, it is particularly important for institutions to socialize newcomers and provide them with an understanding of the organization and how to act within it. As in any organization, newcomers must learn the logistics of their organization, the general expectations of their roles by peers, the formal and informal norms governing behavior, the status and power structures, the reward and communication systems, various organizational policies, and so on (Katz, 1980). Within research organizations, individual differences are complicated by the international nature of the scientific workforce and the corresponding sociocultural differences. Therefore, it is particularly important for research institutions to create an environment in which scientists are able to gain an awareness of the responsible conduct of research as it is defined within the culture, to understand the importance of professional norms, to acquire the capacity to resolve ethical dilemmas, and to recognize and be able to address conflicting standards of research conduct.

Organizational Structure and Processes

To better understand the impact of the research environment on integrity in research, it is important to focus on the organizational elements that characterize its structure—those elements that are more enduring and less prone to change on a day-to-day basis. These elements include an organization's policies and procedures; the roles and responsibilities of members of the organization; decision-making practices; mission, goals and objectives, including the strategies and plans of the organization; and technology.

Policies, Procedures, and Codes The formalization of policies and practices to support the responsible conduct of research is important in the analysis of research environments and their influence on integrity in research. Chapter 2 identified a number of the practices that are essential to the research environment. Specifically, a research organization should have explicit (versus implicit or nonexistent) procedures and systems in place to fairly (1) monitor and evaluate research performance, (2) distribute the resources needed for research, and (3) reward achievement. These policies and procedures should include criteria related to the responsible conduct of research that are applied consistently. Furthermore, research organizations support integrity in research when they have efficient and effective systems in place to review research involving humans and animals, manage conflicts of interest, respond to misconduct, and socialize trainees and other scientists into responsible research practices. The specification of these policies and procedures helps to regulate and maintain group control and reduce uncertainty about acceptable and unacceptable behaviors (Hamner and Organ, 1978).

Research has shown that strongly implemented and embedded ethical codes of conduct within organizations are associated with ethical behavior in the workplace. McCabe and Pavela (1998) describe the University of Maryland at College Park as one example where implementation of a strong “modified” 2 honor code has proven to be a successful strategy for creating a culture where cheating is viewed as socially unacceptable. Major elements of the Maryland model include (1) involving students in educating their peers and resolving academic dishonesty allegations, (2) treating academic integrity as a moral issue, and (3) promoting enhanced student-faculty contact and better teaching. The mere presence of an honor code, however, is generally not sufficient. Rather, the honor code is used as a vehicle to create a shared understanding and acceptance of the policies on academic integrity among both faculty and students (McCabe and Trevino, 1993).

Corporate codes have a similar effect in the workplace. An original study by McCabe demonstrated that self-reported unethical behavior was lower for survey respondents who worked in a company with a corporate code of conduct (McCabe et al., 1996). Self-reported unethical behavior was inversely correlated with the degree to which the codes were embedded in corporate philosophy and the strength with which the code was implemented (determined by survey questionnaire of employee perceptions).

Roles and Responsibilities The specification of roles and responsibilities within various research groups and teams and relevant research programs (e.g., education in the responsible conduct of research, IRBs, and conflict-of-interest review committees) provides a blueprint for researcher behavior. It is particularly important to clearly define researchers' responsibilities related to the responsible conduct of research. Furthermore, the relative positions of these responsibilities within the organizational hierarchy and the status of persons who operate them will send a clear message to the research community about the importance of such endeavors. For example, if a highly respected scientist with high status spearheads the program of education in the responsible conduct of research, and sufficient resources (in terms of both staff and financial resources) are available to carry out the program's work, then there is a greater likelihood that its efforts will be taken seriously. Again, these factors have great symbolic value within the organization and provide compelling images of the organization's ethical culture, which affects the degree to which members of the organization will internalize the norms associated with the responsible conduct of research (Pfeffer, 1981; Siehl and Martin, 1984).

Decision-Making Practices How an organization reaches decisions and formulates policies will affect individuals' perceptions of these policies and their behavioral compliance with them. Individuals are more likely to accept and adhere to policies and practices when they have played a role in their development and implementation. Hence, scientists are more likely to buy into various research policy decisions that are reached through a collaborative process among key stakeholder groups, rather than being imposed by a top-level centralized authority (Anderson et al., 1995, Saraph et al., 1989). Organizational research that focuses on the pursuit of quality and that explicitly values cooperation and collaboration to achieve maximum effectiveness leads to better decisions, higher quality, and higher morale within an organization (NIST, 1999). Classically, faculty and administrators both have governing roles in academic institutions, and this shared responsibility facilitates the bottom-up establishment of rules of research behavior.

Missions, Goals and Objectives, and Strategies and Plans The mission and goals of an organization specify its desired end states (e.g., becoming a “best-practice” site in terms of the protection of human research subjects). Objectives are the specific targets and indicators of goal attainment (e.g., becoming an accredited program and receiving recognitions and awards through scientific associations). Strategies and plans are the overall routes and specific courses of action (e.g., allocating the resources to comply with the standards for accreditation and ensuring that the program has leadership support) to the achievement of goals. If the responsible conduct of research is a prominent part of the mission and goals of a research organization, along with associated objectives, strategies, and plans, then the prominence of this issue sets the tone for the organization's ethical climate and sends a message to scientists that the responsible conduct of research is important. Research has shown that the most successful organizations are those that have a vision and goals that are clearly defined, consistent, and shared among their members (Anderson et al., 1995; Deming, 1986; Freuberg, 1986; Hackman and Wageman, 1995).

Technology An organization's technology offers the methods for transforming system resources into system outputs. It consists of such aspects of an organization's infrastructure as facilities, tools and equipment, and techniques. These aspects can be mental and social, mechanical, chemical, physical, or electronic. Research environments not only need the necessary tools and equipment for their respective types of scientific research, but they must also establish technologies (e.g., accounting systems and library and information retrieval systems) within the organization for the effective and efficient operation of the research. There may be competition within an organization to acquire the various forms of technology that are of sufficient quantity and quality to facilitate research production. The availability of this technology may, in turn, attract highly skilled scientists who hope to carry out research at the cutting edge of technology. As already mentioned, the effective management of competition—in this case, for technologies—is an important element of promoting the responsible conduct of research.

Organizational processes, as opposed to an organization's more stable and enduring structural elements, are the patterned forms of interaction between and among groups or individuals within an organization. Processes represent the dynamic aspects of an organization. The processes that characterize organizational dynamics are too numerous to mention here. However, in the committee's examination of research organizations, the processes of most interest consist of (1) leadership, (2) competition, (3) supervision, (4) communication, (5) socialization, and (6) organizational learning.

Leadership The level of support for high ethical standards by the leadership of an organization or research group can vary; leaders can be extremely supportive, can show ambivalence, or can be nonsupportive. Leaders at every level serve as role models for organizational members and set the tone for an organization's ethical climate (Ashforth, 1985; OGE, 2000; Treviño et al., 1996). Therefore, when leaders support high ethical standards, pay attention to responsible conduct of research, and are openly and strongly committed to integrity in research, they send a clear message about the importance of adhering to responsible research practices (Wimbush and Shepard, 1994). Considerable evidence from the organizational research literature supports the relationship between supervisor behavior and the ethical conduct of the members of an organization (Posner and Schmidt, 1982, 1984; Walker et al., 1979). Supervisors provide a model for how subordinates should act in an organization. Furthermore, supervisors have a primary influence over their subordinates, an influence that is greater than that of an ethics policy. Even if a company or profession has an ethics policy or code of conduct, subordinates follow the leads of their supervisors (Andrews, 1989).

Competition The extent to which the organization is highly competitive, along with the extent to which its rewards (e.g., funding, recognition, access to quality trainees, and power and influence over others) are based on extramural funding and short-term research production, may have negative impacts on integrity in research. Evidence from organizational research indicates that reward systems based on self-interest and commitment only to self rather than to coworkers and the organization are negatively associated with ethical conduct (Kurland, 1996; Treviño et al., 1996). In addition, the level of unethical behavior increases in organizations where there is a high degree of competitiveness among workers (Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979). Given these facts, one might expect that a research environment in which competition for resources is fierce and rewards accrue to those who produce the most over the short term sends a wrong message, a message that says “produce at all costs.”

Creating a reward system and policies that promote being the “best” within the scientific enterprise, and within a context that encourages the responsible conduct of research, represents a challenge in research environments.

Supervision The extent to which research behavior is monitored and quality control systems are operational will affect the level of adherence to ethical standards. Scientists need to see that policies about responsible research behavior are not just window dressing and that the organization has implemented practices that follow up stated policies. Consistency between words and deeds encourages the members of an organization to take policies seriously. Organizations vary widely in terms of their efforts to communicate codes of conduct to members, as well as to implement mechanisms to ensure compliance. When implementation is forceful and the policies and practices become deeply embedded in an organization's culture, there is a greater likelihood that they will be effective in preventing unethical behavior (McCabe and Treviño, 1993; Treviño, 1990; OGE, 2000).

Communication Communication among members of a research organization or research group that is frequent and open, versus infrequent and closed, should have a positive influence on integrity in research. A positive ethical climate is supported by open discussions about ethical issues (Jendrek, 1992; OGE, 2000). Frequent and open communication enhances awareness of issues, encourages individuals to seek advice when faced with ethical dilemmas, and establishes the importance of resolving issues before they become something to be hidden.

Socialization Mentoring relationships between research trainees and their advisers are important in the socialization of young scientists (Anderson et al., 2001; Swazey and Anderson, 1998). These relationships can be characterized by a variety of factors, including the level of trust, communication patterns, and the fulfillment of responsibilities as a mentor or trainee. In addition to mentoring relationships, education in research and professional ethics is an aspect of socialization (Anderson, 1996; Anderson and Louis, 1994; Anderson et al., 1994; Louis et al., 1995; Swazey et al., 1993). Socialization practices can be formal or informal, but they are essential to helping individuals internalize the norms and values associated with the responsible conduct of research. Research that examines the effect of more formalized methods of socialization—for example, education—reveals that interactive techniques (e.g., case discussion, roleplaying, and hands-on practice sessions) are generally more effective in producing behavioral change than are activities with minimal participant interaction or discussion (e.g., lectures or presentations [Davis et al., 1999]). Furthermore, sequenced education has a greater impact than single educational sessions (Davis et al., 1999; OGE, 2000). These findings substantiate the principles of adult education; these principles describe successful practices as being learner-centered, active rather than passive, relevant to the learner's needs, engaging, and reinforcing (Brookfield, 1986; Cross, 1981; Knowles, 1970) ( Chapter 5 ).

Organizational Learning Organizations that learn from their operations and that continuously seek to improve their performance are better able to adapt to a changing environment (Anderson et al., 1994; Deming, 1986; Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Schön, 1983). All organizations change over time, but for some this can be an excruciating and painful process if it comes about through reaction to a crisis situation. For example, when a research subject dies or a researcher is accused of data fabrication, the organization should respond immediately. However, this response is focused on crisis intervention rather than prevention. On the other hand, organizations that have mechanisms in place to continuously evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs and activities are more likely to build a preventive maintenance system (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Schön, 1983). Furthermore, if the members of an organization have a voice in the design and implementation of such systems, then they are more likely to accept and be cooperative with the continual evaluative processes.

Culture and Climate

All of the enduring elements and features of an organization's structure and its more dynamic processes exist within the context of an organization's culture and climate. In fact, an organization's structure and processes help to create the culture and climate inasmuch as they are shaped by them (Ashforth, 1985). An organization's culture consists of the set of shared norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions, along with the behavior and other artifacts (e.g., symbols, rituals, stories, and language) that express these orientations.. Culture and climate factors are characteristics of an organization that guide members' thoughts and actions (Schneider, 1975).

The ethical (or moral) climate is one component of an organization's culture and is particularly relevant in the analysis of integrity in research (Victor and Cullen, 1988). This climate is defined as the prevailing moral beliefs (i.e., the prescribed behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes within the community and the sanctions expressed) that provide the context for conduct. The stable, psychologically meaningful, and shared perceptions of the members of an organization are used as indicators of ethical climate, which may exist both at the organizational level and at the research group or team level (Schneider, 1975; Schneider and Reichers, 1983).

An ethical climate that supports the responsible conduct of research is created when scientists perceive that adherence to ethical standards takes precedence and that sanctions for ethical violation are consistently applied. Research in this area has established that the factors within an organization that are most strongly related to ethical behavior are attention to ethics by supervisors and organizational leadership, consistency between policies and practices, open discussions about ethics, and followup of reports of ethics concerns (OGE, 2000). These features of an organization can help establish an ethical climate in which organizational members perceive that the responsible conduct of research is central to the organization's practice and that it is not something to be worked around. It creates an environment in which a code of conduct is strongly implemented and deeply embedded in the community's culture (Treviño, 1990).

Outputs and Outcomes

The outputs of research organizations are produced at all levels—the organizational level, the research group or team level, and the individual scientist level. The outputs are the products produced, the services delivered, and the ideas developed and tested. The most obvious outputs are the number and quality of research projects completed, reports written, publications produced, patents filed, and students graduated.

For the committee's purposes, however, it is important to focus on the outputs of activities or programs related to integrity in research—for example, institutional review boards, conflict-of-interest review committees, and programs that provide education in the responsible conduct of research. Outputs from these programs are generally measured in terms of the quantity and the quality of activities—for example, the number of workshops and seminars offered, the number of scientists who participate, and the number of research proposals reviewed by IRBs and the dispositions of those proposals. Research organizations that design and implement high-quality activities related to integrity in research—and in a quantity that is sufficient to meet their needs—are more likely to achieve the outcomes that they seek (e.g., adherence to responsible research practices). Although these activities will not be the sole factors that determine the responsible conduct of research, their implementation becomes a symbol for the members of an organization, serving as an indicator of the leadership's commitment to the establishment of a culture and a climate that supports the responsible conduct of research.

The outcomes of organizational activities refer to the specific results that reflect the achievement of goals and objectives. As with organizational outputs, outcomes can be associated with the organization as a whole, the research group, or the individual scientist. However, the committee's primary interest is in the individual scientist's level of integrity in research. As discussed in Chapter 2 , the committee defines integrity in research as the individual scientist's adherence to a number of normative practices for the responsible conduct of research.

Adherence to these practices provides a set of behavioral indicators of an individual's integrity in research. However, behavioral compliance is assumed to be associated with an understanding of the norms, rules, and practices of science. In addition, judgments about an individual's integrity are based on the extent to which intellectual honesty, accuracy, fairness, and collegiality consistently characterize the dispositions and attitudes reflected in a researcher's practice. Judgments about a person's integrity are less about strict adherence to the rules of practice and are more about the disposition to be intellectually honest, accurate, and fair in the practice of science (i.e., in the willingness to admit and correct one's errors and shortcomings).

The committee resisted defining integrity in terms of (1) adherence to the normative practices listed in Chapter 2 , (2) the knowledge and awareness of the practices of responsible research, and (3) the attitudes and orientation toward the practices of responsible research (i.e., the degree to which individuals agree with the practices, the level of importance that they attach to them, and the extent to which they are subject to conflicting sets of practices), as has been common in the social sciences. 3 These three conceptually distinct categories of outcomes fail to capture the complexity of the process through which individuals interact with their environment and make ethical decisions. One simply cannot assume that as scientists gain awareness of standards of practice, they will be positively oriented to them or will be more likely to adhere to the behavioral requirements. The committee recognizes that although researchers might be well intentioned, there is truth in what psychologists (Rest, 1983) have observed: that everyone is capable of missing a moral issue (moral blindness); developing elaborate and internally persuasive arguments to justify questionable actions (defective reasoning); failing to prioritize a moral value over a personal one (lack of motivation or commitment); being ineffectual, devious, or careless (character or personality defects, often implied when someone is referred to as “a jerk”); or having ineffectual skills at problem solving or interpersonal communication (incompetence).

For this reason, focusing on the processes that give rise to the responsible conduct of research are important individual-level outcomes of organizational activities within the research environment. Components of the process of ethical decision making include ethical sensitivity, reasoning, moral motivation and commitment, and character and competence (Bebeau, 2001). Educational programs that train scientists in the responsible conduct of research are often premised on the assumption that these essential capacities for ethical decision making are well developed by the time individuals begin their research education, and that one simply needs to teach the rules of the responsible conduct of research. Research on ethical development in the professions demonstrates that even mature professionals show considerable variability on performance assessments that measure ethical sensitivity, moral reasoning and judgment, professional role orientation, and appropriate character and competence to implement action plans effectively.

Therefore, if a research environment implements educational programs to foster integrity in research, then these programs should promote sensitivity to issues that are likely to arise in the research setting by building a capacity for reasoning carefully about conflicts inherent in proposing, conducting, and reporting research; by developing a sense of personal identity that incorporates the norms and values of the research culture; and by building competence in problem solving and interpersonal communication (see Chapter 5 for further discussion).

External Environment

The external environment of a research organization consists of both an external-task environment and a general environment ( Figure 3-2 ). The external-task environment includes all the organizations and conditions that are directly related to an organization's main operations and its technologies. The systems and subsystems of the external-task environment are embedded within the larger sociocultural, political, and economic environment and have a more indirect impact on an organization. It is important to recognize that relationships also exist between and among all elements within the external environment. For example, government policies and regulations can affect the areas and levels of funding. Journal policies can be affected by decisions made within scientific associations, and these decisions can be driven by government regulation (or pending regulation).

External-Task Environment

A number of factors within the external-task environment have a significant impact on scientists' responsible conduct of research. These factors include government regulation, funding for scientific work, job opportunities for trainees and researchers, journal policies and practices, and the policies and practices of scientific societies.

Government Regulation Governmental bodies, particularly at the federal level, have been promulgating regulations concerning the conduct of research for many years. Most widely known and recognized are the regulations regarding the protection of human research subjects (45 C.F.R. § 46, 1999; 21 C.F.R. § 50 and 56, 1998) and the protection of animals in research (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131, 1966, et seq.). Furthermore, regulations have been promulgated regarding the evaluation of allegations and the reporting of scientific misconduct (42 C.F.R. § 50, §§A, 1989; Federal Register , 2000) and the handling and disposal of hazardous chemicals in the laboratory (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1450, 1996), to name just two. As these government regulations come into force, they have direct impacts on a research organization and individual scientists. Specifically, organizations and individuals must be in compliance with the regulations or face sanctions.

Funding for Scientific Work Research organizations are directly affected by both the level and the source of funding that is available for scientific work (e.g., they are affected by the balances between government and corporate support and between industry and foundation support). Most funding sources provide support for specific research proposals rather than particular investigators. Although proposals are usually ranked on a relative scale, more typically they are funded in an all-or-none fashion. At the same time, funding needs always outpace funding opportunities. For instance, only one in three investigator-initiated grant proposals (see http://silk.nih.gov/public/[email protected]. dsncc ) to the National Institutes of Health is successful. In this situation, even investigators who succeed in their research sometimes lose funding, a fate that threatens the very existence of their projects and often threatens their personal incomes.

The task for research organizations is to develop structures that help their scientists deal with this competitive research situation while maintaining the responsible conduct of research. Similarly, when corporate or industry funds are involved, research organizations should require strategies for the management and disclosure of conflicts of interest to reduce problems related to publication rights, ownership of intellectual property, and research involving human subjects.

Job Opportunities When the job market is tight and there is more competition for every research position, researchers will be pressured to achieve higher levels of productivity and recognition. This situation challenges scientists to be the best while maintaining the highest levels of integrity in research. Similarly, research programs must compete for students and postdoctoral fellows, who, in turn, enhance a program's accomplishments and overall status. The ability of researchers to gain recognition often is believed to be the best path to attracting high-quality trainees to a program. The organizational challenge is to help researchers develop competitive programs while maintaining a high level of commitment to integrity in research.

Journal Policies and Practices Journal editors can be more or less rigorous in their implementation of the review process and the extent to which they insist on high levels of adherence to scientific standards. Furthermore, journals may have specific policies in such areas as authorship practices, disclosure of conflicts of interest, duplicate publication, and reporting of research methodologies. The scientific community receives an important message about integrity in research when journal policies and practices regarding these practices are clear and are required as a condition of publication—and when the most prestigious journals adopt such practices. For example, members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recently revised their submission policies related to industry-sponsored research. Authors are now required to sign a statement accepting full responsibility for the conduct of a clinical trial, and they must confirm that they had access to the original data and had full control over the decision to publish (Davidoff et al., 2001).

Policies and Practices of Scientific Societies Scientific societies are in a position to influence the behaviors of their members in ways that could promote integrity in research 4 (AAAS, 2000). The societies vary extensively, however, in their development of codes of conduct, their enforcement of such codes, and their socialization of members with regard to these standards of behavior. To aid in this process, the Association of American Medical Colleges has published a guide to help societies in the development of ethical codes (AAMC, 1997). Other associations develop standards for accreditation—for example, standards for science education programs, research laboratories, and programs for the protection of human and animal research subjects. These accreditation standards generally have specific statements regarding the responsible conduct of research and stipulate the structures within the organization that must be in place to ensure compliance with the standards. Scientists who are part of such accredited programs will be subject to the influences of these external controls.

General Environment

The general environment has an indirect impact on an organization. This environment includes all of the conditions and institutions that have sustained or infrequent impacts on the organization and its functions (Harrison, 1994). Included are the state or conditions of major social institutions (e.g., the economy, political system, educational system, science and technology system, and legal system) as well as the local, national, and international cultures within which an organization operates. The general public, and more specifically the effects of public trust in the research enterprise, are also important components of the general environment. As reflected in Figure 3-2 , the organizations and conditions of the external-task environment (unshaded circles) are embedded within this larger environment (shaded area).

An example of how the broader environment can affect the conduct of research is the recent national debate over embryonic stem cell research; this debate reflects a clash of values that affect the characterization of ethical or unethical research (NAS, 2001; National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999). In another instance, the new rules governing the privacy of health records that are part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act are being challenged by scientists as too restrictive in providing access to identifiable data for research (AAMC, 2001; Annas, 2002). Also, society places a high premium on human rights and the protection of vulnerable persons, values that have been translated into federal regulations for the protection of human research subjects (45 C.F.R. § 46, 1993, and 21 C.F.R. § 50 and 56, 1981).

Other social institutions also have an indirect impact on research environments. Educational systems produce scientists, and these systems affect not only their quantity but also their quality and how well they have been socialized into professional standards of conduct. The technology systems determine the availability of equipment and the methods used to carry out various types of research, factors that may raise questions about the propriety of certain research endeavors. Ethical conflicts are often created when the development of new technologies requires an answer to the question of whether what can be done should be done. Finally, the legal system and the propensity in the United States to resort to litigation may bring about situations in which scientists are caught between the responsible conduct of research and subpoenas for confidential data. These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they reflect the ways in which major social institutions and cultural values can affect research organizations and a scientist's practice of research.

The committee found no comprehensive body of research or writing that can guide the development of hypotheses regarding the relationships between the research environment and the responsible conduct of research. However, viewing the research environment as an open-systems model, which is often used in general organizational and administrative theory, makes it possible to hypothesize how various components affect integrity in research. Inputs of funds and other resources can influence behavior both positively and negatively. The organizational structure and processes that typify the mission and activities of an organization can either promote or detract from the responsible conduct of research. The culture and climate that are unique to an organization both promote and perpetuate certain behaviors. Finally, the external environment, over which individuals and, often, institutions have little control, can affect behavior and alter institutional integrity for better or for worse.

• AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 2000. The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity . A report of a conference, April 10, 2000, Washington, DC. [Online]. Available: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/ projects/integrity.htm [Accessed January 7, 2002].
• AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). 1997. Developing a Code of Ethics in Research: A Guide for Scientific Societies . Washington, DC: AAMC.
• AAMC. 2001. Letter to Secretary Thompson on Impact of Medical Privacy Rule on Research . [Online]. Available: http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/corres/research/thompson. htm [Accessed February 1, 2002].
• Anderson J, Rungtusanatham M, Schroeder R, Devaraj S. 1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: Preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences26:637–658.
• Anderson MS. 1996. Misconduct and departmental context: Evidence from the Acadia Institute's Graduate Education Project. Journal of Information Ethics5(1):15–33.
• Anderson MS, Louis KS. 1994. The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education35:273–299.
• Anderson MS, Louis KS, Earle J. 1994. Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education65:331– 350.
• Anderson MS, Oju EC, Falkner TMR. 2001. Help from faculty: Findings from the Acadia Institute Graduate Education Study. Science and Engineering Ethics7:487–503. [ PubMed : 11697005 ]
• Andrews KR. 1989. Ethics in practice. Harvard Business Review Sept-Oct:99–104. [ PubMed : 10295476 ]
• Annas GJ. 2002. Medical privacy and medical research—judging the new federal regulations. New England Journal of Medicine346:216–220. [ PubMed : 11796863 ]
• Ashforth BE. 1985. Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Re view10:837–847.
• Bebeau MJ. 2001. Influencing the moral dimensions of professional practice: Implications for teaching and assessing for research integrity. In: Steneck NH, Scheetz MD, eds. [2000]. Investigating Research Integrity: Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity . Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Pp.179-188.
• Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Narvaez D. 1999. Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher28(4):18–26.
• Beer M. 1980. Organizational Change and Development—A Systems View . Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
• Brookfield SD. 1986. Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Cross KP. 1981. Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Daft R. 1992. Organizations: Theory and Design , 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
• Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Nicholls MG, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJPM, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, Wilkes MS. 2001. Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. Canadian Medical Association Journal165:786–788. [ PMC free article : PMC81460 ] [ PubMed : 11584570 ]
• Davis D, O'Brien MAT, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A. 1999. Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?Journal of American Medical Association282:867–874. [ PubMed : 10478694 ]
• Deming WE. 1986. Out of Crisis . Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Donabedian A. 1980. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring: The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment . Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
• Federal Register. 2000. Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of Research . [Online]. Available: http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID= 47426132664+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve [Accessed March 18, 2002].
• Fiol DC, Lyles MA. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review10:803– 813.
• Freuberg D. 1986. The Corporate Conscience: Money, Power, and Responsible Business . New York, NY: American Management Association.
• Hackman JR, Wageman R. 1995. Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly40:309–342.
• Hamner WC, Organ DW. 1978. Organizational Behavior: An Applied Psychological Approach . Dallas, TX: Business Publications.
• Harrison MI. 1994. Diagnosing Organizations: Methods, Models, and Processes , 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hegarty WH, Sims HP. 1978. Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology63:451–457.
• Hegarty WH, Sims HP. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology64:331–338.
• Heitman E. 2000. Ethical values in the education of biomedical researchers. Hastings Center Report30:S40–S44. [ PubMed : 10971905 ]
• Jendrek MP. 1992. Students' reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development33:260–273.
• Katz D, Kahn R. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations , 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Katz R. 1980. Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 81– 127.
• Knowles MS. 1970. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragagy Versus Pedagogy . New York, NY: New York Association Press.
• Kohlberg L. 1984. The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages . San Francisco: Harper & Row. Essays on Moral Development Vol. 2.
• Kurland N. 1996. Trust, accountability, and sales agents' dueling loyalties. Business Ethics Quarterly6:289–310.
• Louis KS, Anderson MS, Rosenberg L. 1995. Academic misconduct and values: The department's influence. The Review of Higher Education18:393–422.
• McCabe DL. 2000. New research on academic integrity: the success of “modified” honor codes. Synfax Weekly Report [Online]. Available: http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/ SFX000515.shtml [Accessed July 25, 2001].
• McCabe DL, Pavela GM. 1998. The effect of institutional policies and procedures on academic integrity. In: Burnett DD, Rudolph L, Clifford KO, eds. Academic Integrity Mat ters . Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. Pp.93–108.
• McCabe DL, Treviño LK. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education64:522–538.
• McCabe DL, Treviño LK, Butterfield KD. 1996. The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly6:461–476.
• NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2001. Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1999. Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research , Vol. I to III. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 1999. Malcolm Baldrige National Qual ity Award 1998 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
• OGE (U.S. Office of Government Ethics). 2000. Executive Branch Employee Ethics: Survey 2000 . Washington, DC: OGE.
• Perry A, Kane K, Bernesser K, Spicker P. 1990. Type A behavior, competitive achievementstriving, and cheating among college students. Psychological Reports66:459–465. [ PubMed : 2349335 ]
• Peters TJ. 1978. Symbols, patterns, and settings: An optimistic case for getting things done. Organizational Dynamics7(2):3–23.
• Peters TJ, Waterman RH, Jr. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies . New York, NY: Harper & Row.
• Pfeffer J. 1981. Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In: Cummings LL, Staw BM eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp.1–52.
• Posner B, Schmidt W. 1982. What kind of people enter the public and private sectors? An undated comparison of perceptions, stereotypes, and values. Human Resource Manage ment21:35–43.
• Posner B, Schmidt W. 1984. Values and the American manager: An update. California Man agement Review26(3):202–216.
• Rest, J. 1983. Morality. In: Mussen PH (series ed.) and Flavell J, Markman E (vol. eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3,Cognitive Development, 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley. Pp.556–629.
• Rest J, Narvaez D, Bebeau MJ, Thoma SJ. 1999. Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo Kohlbergian Approach . Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Saraph JV, Benson PG, Schroeder RG. 1989. An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences20:810–829.
• Schein EH. 1968. Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review9:1-15.
• Schneider B. 1975. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology28:447–479.
• Schneider B, Reichers AE. 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology36:19–39.
• Schön DA. 1983. Organizational learning. In: Morgan G, ed. Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp.114–128.
• Siehl C, Martin J. 1984. The role of symbolic management: How can managers effectively transmit organizational culture? In: Hunt JG, Hosking DM, Schriesheim CA, Stewart R, eds. Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leader ship . Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Pp.227–239.
• Swazey JP, Anderson MS. 1998. Mentors, advisors, and role models in graduate and professional education. In: Rubin ER, ed. Mission Management: A New Synthesis, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Association of Academic Health Centers. Pp.165–185.
• Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Louis KS. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist81:542–553.
• Treviño LK. 1990. A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics. Research in Organizational Change and Development4:195–230.
• Treviño LK, Butterfield KD, McCabe DL. 1996. The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly8(3):447–476.
• Van Maanen J, Schein EH. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In: Staw BM, ed. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 209– 264.
• Victor B, Cullen JB. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly33:101–125.
• Walker OC, Churchill GA, Ford NM. 1979. Where do we go from here? Selected conceptual and empirical issues concerning the motivation and performance of the industrial sales force. In: Albuam G, Churchill GA, eds. Critical Issues in Sales Management State of the Art and Future Research Needs . Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press. Pp.10–75.
• Wanous JP. 1980. Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, and Socialization of Newcomers . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Wimbush JC, Shepard JM. 1994. Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics13:637– 647.

For general references on organizational behavior and processes, see Donabedian (1980), Hamner and Organ (1978), Harrison (1994), Katz (1980), Katz and Kahn (1978), Peters (1978), Peters and Waterman (1982), and Pfeffer (1981). For general references on ethical cultures and climate see Ashforth (1985), Schneider and Reichers (1983), and Victor and Cullen (1988). For general references on moral development, see Kohlberg (1984), Rest (1983), and Rest et al. (1999). For general references on adult learning and educational practices, see Brookfield (1986), Cross (1981), and Knowles (1970). For general references on professional socialization, see Schein (1968), Siehl and Martin (1984), Van Maanen and Schein (1979), and Wanous (1980).

Traditional honor codes generally include a pledge that students sign attesting to the integrity of their work, a strong, often exclusive role for students in the judicial process that addresses dishonesty allegations, and provisions such as unproctored exams. Some also require students to report any cheating observed. Modified honor codes generally include a strong or exclusive role for students in the academic judicial system, but do not usually require unproctored exams or that students sign a pledge. Modified codes do place a strong campus focus on the issue of academic integrity and students are reminded frequently that their institution places a high value on integrity (McCabe, 2000).

A recent review of approaches to the study of morality (Bebeau et al., 1999) has challenged the usefulness of the usual tripartite view that assumes that the elements to be studied and assessed are attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. When researchers have studied the connections among these elements, they usually do not find significant connections and are left with the conclusion that attitudes do not have much to do with knowing and behavior is often devoid of feeling and thinking. A more profitable approach is to assume that many types of cognitions, many types of affects, and many kinds of observable behaviors are involved in morality or integrity. All behavior is the result of cognitive-affective processes. Instead of studying cognitions, affects, and behaviors as separate elements, psychologists suggest that researchers study functional processes that must arise to produce moral behavior (Rest, 1983).

See Chapter 6 for further discussion of the role professional and scientific societies can play in fostering an environment that promotes integrity in research.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2002. 3, The Research Environment and Its Impact on Integrity in Research.
• PDF version of this title (5.4M)

In this Page

Related information.

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• The Research Environment and Its Impact on Integrity in Research - Integrity in ... The Research Environment and Its Impact on Integrity in Research - Integrity in Scientific Research

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Science and Technology in the Academic Enterprise: Status, Trends, and Issues (1989)

Chapter: the research environment.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

EMERGING TRENDS 17 Emerging Trends The ability of universities to broaden their missions and play a larger role in the nation's research enterprise will depend on the resolution of three sources of tension, each pulling at the fabric of the enterprise. The first strain on the enterprise is slow adaptation to an increasingly complex research and educational environment; the organization, culture, and resources of academic institutions and their research sponsors constrain their response to new demands and opportunities. The second source of stress on the enterprise is the replacement of retiring high-quality research personnel during the next decade; it may not be possible, given the current production level of research scientists and engineers. The third source emanates from the need to sustain the quality of current research institutions and programs, which is increasingly expensive to do and—in an era of severely constrained fiscal resources—increasingly difficult. THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT The environment in which the academic research community must function will increase in complexity. National and international economic, political, and social cross-currents influence the priorities, topics, and contexts of scientific investigation. These influences are combining to challenge the traditional way scholars and their host institutions operate and relate to each other. Furthermore, many new scientific and technological opportunities require more flexible, cross- disciplinary relationships both within and among universities, industries, and governments. There are many factors at work here. First, important and exciting advances in fundamental science are occurring are creating more complex questions on the research frontier and many of the questions are more frequently in multi-disciplinary settings at the interface between disciplines. Furthermore, some traditional fields, such as molecular biology and microelectronics, are merging with other fields or being redefined. Second, as product life cycles become shorter, advances in fundamental knowledge become more relevant to technology development. As a result, industries, universities, and financial institutions are developing sophisticated relationships that include a multiplicity of formal and informal structures. Some faculty members, for example, are assuming entrepreneurial roles, including developing relationships with non-academic organizations to pursue the commercial development of their research. Third, international cooperation is intensifying in many scientific and engineering fields. The growing research capabilities of other nations provide new opportunities for collaboration—especially in astronomy, oceanography, and high- energy physics—that require large capital investments. International cooperation is also required for research on such problems as global climate change, ozone depletion, and acid rain. New technologies increasingly shape the scholarly agenda in the sciences and engineering. State-of-the-art instrumentation allows for experiments requiring heretofore un-achievable precision and scale. New generations of computers make possible large-scale 

EMERGING TRENDS 18 data analysis and provide the mechanism for rapidly transferring and sharing information among institutions, organizations, and nations. News of new processes and products of scientific research reach an ever-wider U.S. audience. To the extent that popularization contributes to public understanding of science, it enhances political support. But it also brings greater societal scrutiny to the research enterprise. There is, for example, growing public pressure on federal regulatory and grant-making agencies to control the use of toxic substances and radioisotopes, and experiments involving animals. In addition, societal intervention in the research agenda is increasingly exercised through the courts, notably in environmental protection, radiation and carcinogen disposal, and the release of genetically engineered material. In addition to increasing regulatory complexity in some fields, the lack of regulations in other fields is also a problem—often forcing researchers to curtail or abandon lines of inquiry in areas such as biotechnology. The most pronounced recent trend is state and local regulation of research. A few state, county, and city governments have begun to influence the conduct of local university research through controls on the type and location of university facilities and on research protocols, such as the use and care of test animals and the use of genetically altered organisms. Should this trend become more widespread, investigators and their host institutions would have to adapt to a changing array of costly reporting requirements, safeguards, controls, and regulatory supervision. Universities and research sponsors face difficulty in rapidly adapting to a changing research environment. In response to the changing research environment, some members of the academic enterprise are testing innovative strategies for organizing, conducting, managing, and financing research. Rapid adaptation to new demands and opportunities in the research area, however, is slowed by many factors—including tradition, inertia, the competition for university resources, the demands of the university's educational mission, and the aging of faculty—impinging on the current organization, culture, and resources of university-based scholars and their funding agencies. There is growing debate within universities over the ability of the current disciplinary and governance structures to respond adequately to the expanding research agenda, as well as to find an appropriate balance of commitments to scholarship, education, and public service. New research opportunities often require more flexible budgeting and assignment of research faculty, inter-disciplinary approaches, expansion of non-faculty research personnel, extra-departmental initiatives, and allowance for faculty entrepreneurial activity. Furthermore, larger-scale multi-disciplinary research efforts require hierarchical management and more centralized governance structures for rapidly making strategic decisions and for inter- departmental planning. In addition, the intense regulatory environment in many areas of research requires active participation by the institution's administration in deciding faculty research topics and protocols, as well as in serving as a necessary buffer against unwarranted outside interference. On the other hand, the present university disciplinary structure has proved adaptable to new research opportunities and, more importantly, provides a necessary, albeit cumbersome, system for quality control through peer review. Young faculty, who are 

The U.S. academic research enterprise is entering a new era characterized by remarkable opportunities and increased strain. This two-part volume integrates the experiential knowledge of group members with quantitative data analyses in order to examine the status of scientific and technological research in academic settings. Part One reviews the status of the current research enterprise, emerging trends affecting it, and issues central to its future. Part Two is an overview of the enterprise and describes long-term trends in financial and human resources. This new book will be useful in stimulating policy discussions—especially among individuals and organizations that fund or perform academic research.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Sabine Müller

On creating a good research environment

31 March 2021 | doi:10.5281/zenodo.463628 | 1 Comment

Sabine Müller on the hierarchical system of German academia and why it could be a problem for the wellbeing of young academics and Ph.D. candidates. She compares it to her experiences at Oxford University and sheds light on the differences between the two research cultures.

“Researchers say that their working culture is best when it is collaborative, inclusive, supportive and creative, when researchers are given time to focus on their research priorities, when leadership is transparent and open, and when individuals have a sense of safety and security. But too often research culture is not at its best.” [“What researchers think about the culture they work in”, Wellcome Trust and Shift Learning (London 2020), p. 3 (subsequently referred to as “What researchers think”)] The executive summary of the 2020 Wellcome Trust study on research culture goes on to describe how “many [researchers] are often missing out on critical aspects of good management … [a]nd worse, many have experienced exploitation, discrimination, harassment and bullying.” Notably, members of minority groups more often experience the latter. These results echo those of previous surveys, such as those conducted by Advance HE or the journal Nature in the UK – and which illustrate that these issues are on the radar of public debate. (Woolston, 2019) The situation in Germany is hardly any different, though of course data in Germany is scarce and hardly sufficient to make any reliable statements about early career researchers’ emotional situation. (Most notably, the German Centre for High Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW) runs a National Academics Panel Study since 2017 which promises to give further data on the condition and well-being of doctoral researchers.) Notably, existing studies are frequently a reaction to incidents that reached public attention (Albott, 2019), or rely on surveys by the concerned group such as by the networks of doctoral researchers of non-university research organisations. Accordingly, the existence of guidelines for managing power abuse or mental health are confined to institutions which have struggled with cases. Otherwise the silence on the topic by reputable research organisations such as the DFG or the academies is overwhelming . The reasons for this gap may be manifold. German academia is not immune to the complex range of problems such as non-transparent leadership, a lack of inclusiveness, harassment or mental health issues which resist a positive research culture. Each of these issues by themselves has numerous causes, but all of them are amplified by a system which lays “an excessive focus on measuring performance” as well as institutional structures such as the accumulation of responsibilities and decision making as well as steep hierarchies. (Shore & Wright, 1999) It is the latter aspects which I would like to focus on as crucial elements required in order to foster a cultural change for a positive research environment, and which, compared to the bigger systemic issues could be rather easily fixed.

As a career development adviser in Germany, I was frequently confronted with the following “argument” during discussions with senior researchers about the working conditions of early career researchers: “It was like this when I did my PhD, so why should that not work nowadays?” I always wondered what exactly this was meant to say? Unpacking this claim to myself it seems to implicitly suggest 1) the person, too, did not attain their PhD in good conditions, 2) but the fact that they succeeded makes them think that it was not so bad after all. Is the rationale behind this that a “rough school” toughens people up to prepare them for academic life? In fact, I often also heard that doctoral researchers today are not only too sensitive but too demanding. But is the consequence that only people who are willing to toughen up stay in academia? Besides the questionable psychological rationale, I wonder whether we really think that this is what academia needs: tough personalities? Putting aside the universe of unconscious biases which is touched by such a question, shouldn’t academic work and life not be guided – even more than any other branches of the labour market – by the principle of reason, multiperspectivity, openness, integrity and such, rather than of the dull workings of unconscious bias and self-perpetuation? And should the system not aim to do everything for those qualities to be able to unfold and thrive? Responding to such a statement from my own personal experience, I often felt awkward since I did not share this experience. And this difference in the culture of dealing with issues such as discrimination, mental health, diversity and welfare, as well as power abuse has struck me most notably upon my return to Germany after I had spent eight years at the University of Oxford taking up a position in career development in a research organisation. My experience during my doctoral and postdoctoral research was a very positive one – in many respects, I had the time of my life – and I felt that encouraging people to create an environment for such a good experience would be crucial. In the following piece, I focus on some landmarks of this positive (!) experience in my academic career in order to point to how a fundamental change of culture needs to be human centered, and attend to individual experience. 

I was granted a first memorable insight into a different mind-set before I left for my one year Master’s, which led to my doctoral research at the University of Oxford. I was confronted with the choice between 32 colleges. I was inclined to apply at the college to which my future supervisor was affiliated – a thought which very much agreed with the logic of the German system I was socialized in where doctoral researchers are frequently not only naturally affiliated with the “Lehrstuhl” of their supervisors but also seem to enter into a sort of patronship relation expressed in the still prevalent German term “Doktorvater/-mutter”. However, my supervisor asked me to consider that in case of disagreement or conflict, it would be advantageous to be able to have an independent college adviser to turn to. The sense of responsibility expressed in this thoughtfulness with respect to providing an environment to my advantage profoundly shaped my own actions along the subsequent years as doctoral and postdoctoral researcher, as senior subject tutor and lecturer at Oxford University and beyond. Supervision training might help, but can only partly address the care at work here. The ambition to promote your doctoral researcher, so that s/he can realise her/his potential is connected to a sense of duty to pay attention to the welfare of your supervisee. This attention is promoted and aided by structural aspects. Beside my supervisor – who I am lucky to say was a most conscious and inspiring researcher with whom I met every other week, and who conscientiously read every essay, chapter or anything else I ever submitted – I was then assigned a college adviser. In my case this person was an éminence grise in my field who, as tradition would have it, invited me to a talk at the fireplace and imparted his wisdom to me – and, last but not least, a faculty adviser who was there to offer further opportunities to talk about the programme of my thesis and to whom both my supervisor and I had to submit a progress report by the end of each term. Moreover, the degree at Oxford has a clear milestone system in which supervision and assessment are separated from each other: the vivas for the transfer of status as “Probationer Research Student” to DPhil Candidate after one year into your degree as well as the confirmation of status after two years is taken by two faculty members. The assessment of the submitted final dissertation lies in the hands of an internal and external examiner. This way of organization ensures that the role of the supervisor is focused to act as adviser and to support their supervisee as best as they can. Of course, this means some control for the supervision process: Failure to bring your supervisee to successfully finish their degree will not have consequences for any academic but is not as easily obscured by the possibility to drag the doctoral research on or by marking the thesis accordingly. At the same time, the shared roles opened the opportunity for me, as the supervisee to connect and frankly discuss with other senior academics who took my work seriously. 

Thus, the transparency of a clear milestone system, which details what is expected from the student as well as the separation of the roles of supervision, monitoring and assessment, has the potential to minimise the risk of power abuse and lifts the weight from the relation between supervisors from the start. It affords the supervisee the opportunity to discuss her or his work throughout the process with various researchers, to gain more perspectives and develop an independence of thought and a network from the get-go. Combined with the opportunity to frequently share your intellectual thoughts with established experts in your field and beyond made doctoral and postdoctoral research particularly worthwhile.

I would like to add that as a senior subject tutor for German Studies I experienced the advantages of this disentanglement of examination and supervision for myself: the faculty assigns a committee which designs the end of year exams. Marking and assessment were organised anonymously in an annual rotating system of examiners. Both procedures entail multiple advantages: not only do they limit the power of tutor or supervisor but they also relieve both from that burden of power. Not being the examiner, you can truly fulfil the role as adviser, coach and teacher and accompany your students along their development. Reaching out to your tutor or supervisor is easier, if you do not have to fear any repercussion on your performance. In this context, I also learned to appreciate the carefully built college and university community which provided a network to support students and lecturers alike. It ranges from the so-called common rooms with their mentor for freshers and trained peer advisers to college and university counsellors as well support staff for people of various religious and ethnical background on campus. Coming from a German university, this amount of attention and care which unloaded over my head was at first rather overwhelming and I confess I thought it unnecessary. But over the years, I learned to appreciate this culture which aspired to keep people well and enable them to enjoy their time at the university. Especially later, as a senior subject tutor, when my contract stated in no uncertain terms that tasks comprised the welfare of my students, this community recognised the limits of my competencies and acknowledged the need for welfare offers. 

Another major landmark remains the handling of admission and application procedures. Perhaps it is worth explaining that student admissions at Oxford is a highly professional and formal process which stretches over two weeks in December after the autumn term. Not only are we dealing with standardised applications which aim to highlight the potential of each candidate. Each applicant invited to interviews has the right to get at least two interviews with different academics to assess their performance. In fact, it is a very intricate system with the objective to select students with high potential, no matter their background. In my first year, I was asked to write the protocol for admission interviews and even for that rather small task, I had to complete an online course on legal liabilities, correct interview methods, harassment, discrimination and the mechanism of unconscious bias. As senior subject tutor responsible for admissions in your subject area, I had to take another, more extensive course with on- and offline elements. These courses were a necessary eye-opener to topics which had never been addressed, even in the student council of my German university. It set my expectations of what I consider to be a professional application procedure and to this day I find it hard to accept that none of this type of elementary interview training, which raises awareness of everyone’s unconscious blind spots concerning bias and awareness, is a required standard at German universities or research organisations. It would be easy to implement part of a structured onboarding for each and every academic at the university and at least make the recruiting procedure a bit fairer. 

To sum up, I would like to make clear that I am aware that problems prevail in the UK, as the quoted Wellcome Trust study illustrates. I also want to point out that reason why welfare at Oxford and Cambridge is paid such attention is not entirely altruistic: for a long time, these Universities had to deal with the reproach of higher suicide rates – a critique which cannot be sustained (Hawton et al., 2012).  In addition, it is often pointed out that these institutions are only accessible to elites, which, at an undergraduate level, is very true. At the same time, Oxbridge institutions  understand that in order to attract the best academics they have to cater to people’s wellbeing as human beings in every aspect. So strategic deliberations and monetary concerns are certainly central drivers for the implementation. However, this does not devalue the learnings from such an experience: a collaborative, open, transparent and overall friendly environment relies on the mind-set of the academics who acknowledge the responsibility for their supervisees. This mind-set is supported by structures that foster transparency, independence and exchange by clearly laying out the demands and milestones of a doctoral course (without the need to make people go back to school) by separating the roles of supervision, monitoring and assessment, by carefully building a community with low-threshold support structures catering to various backgrounds as well as training to raise awareness to biases, harassment, stress symptoms etc. None of these suggestions are new but maybe not enough people have experienced how powerful they can be in their small workings and, thus, not enough people can or want to pass on this kind of experience.

Albott, Alison: Germany’s prestigious Max Planck Society investigates new allegations of abuse, in Nature (online) (9 July 2019) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05668-y / doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05668-y

Hawton K., Bergen H et.al : University Students over a 30-years period, in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemology 47 (2012), p.43-51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0310-3 (a summary is provided: https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/publications/168323 ). Further information can be obtained at the Office for National statistics :

Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1999). Audit Culture and Anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British Higher Education. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(4), 557-575. doi: 10.2307/2661148 See also:  “A cry for help”, in Nature 575 (14 November 2019), p.257-258: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03489-1

Woolston, Cristof: PhDs: torturous truths, in Nature 575 (13 November 2019), p.403-406 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03459-7

Thanks for this, Sabine. You very well present the PhD scholar’s perspective. From a professor’s or supervisor’s perspective it is in my view even worse. I remember one of my first PhD examinations in Germany – not as a supervisor. I thought the PhD was really poor and wanted to be nice and make it pass but give it a very bad mark. I talk to a colleagues about this and she adviced me “Are you crazy, you cannot do that!! His supervisor will interpret this as an open war”. I learnt that the assessment of a PhD candidate is also assessment of the supervisor, so if you want to punish a colleague who has not supported you in another situation, you can do it by marking his candidate poorly. The other way around as well, of course: you’ll give high marks to the the PhD candidates of your friends. You can imagine yourself what kind of informal “economy” that goes on among supervisors/professors. I have been part of many PhD examinations, and I tell you that there is no system at all of good candidates getting good marks and bad candidates getting bad marks. What is negotiated at a PhD examination is very much the standing of the professors and their interrelations. A feudal system.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

First we need to confirm, that you're human. thirty nine ÷ = thirteen

Author info

Sabine Müller is currently Adviser for Education and Participation in the Digital World at Wikimedia Deutschland. Before, she was a research consultant for humanities and educational research as well as career development at the head office of the Leibniz Association. She holds a DPhil from Oxford University where she also worked as senior subject tutor for German Studies at St John’s and Magdalen College as well as affiliate postdoc on embodied cognition and narration.

Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Technicians conduct Covid-19 antibody neutralisation testing in a laboratory at the African Health Research Institute (AHRI) in Durban, South Africa.

Research environment: people, culture and openness

Research to solve the urgent health challenges facing everyone depends on thriving research environments that are open, engaged, equitable, ethical and efficient.

• Share with Facebook
• Share with X
• Share with LinkedIn
• Share with Email

We believe that excellent research happens in environments where people from all backgrounds are treated with respect, supported and enabled to thrive.  

Solving the planet’s most urgent health challenges requires creative and high-quality ideas, that must be open and accessible to everyone, to achieve the greatest impact and save lives more quickly. It also requires ethically sound research that is engaged with the needs of the communities it is addressing.  

We see these as fundamental and necessary changes to the way that research usually happens and they are at the heart of the positive and inclusive research cultures we want to encourage. Only when these approaches are considered can we say that the research we fund is truly for the health challenges facing everyone.

By taking a holistic view of the environmental factors that impact research outcomes, Wellcome can achieve its ambition to be an inclusive funder of research to improve health for everyone.

Hannah Hope

Open Research Lead

What we're doing  

Our work cuts across Wellcome’s funding teams, supporting them to deliver their programmes of work on discovery research , climate and health , infectious disease  and mental health . 

Our ambition is that the research we fund and the processes by which we do this are open, engaged, ethical and efficient.  

In addition to our internally focused work, we aim to contribute to the wider research ecosystem to ensure that Wellcome researchers have access to the tools and skills to maximise the impact of their work. This includes convening community events, policy work, supporting infrastructure and occasionally, offering funding for relevant activities.

What do we mean by 'research environment'?

Typically, the strength of a ‘research environment’ is judged by the excellence of the infrastructure it provides for the research taking place.

Wellcome’s definition of the research environment goes beyond this to consider the culture and behaviours that create excellent research practice. For us, this includes research that is inclusive in design and practice, ethical and engaged with relevant community stakeholders. An open and transparent research process is a tool to enable these practices and to enable the outputs of the research to have the maximum impact.

Examples of our work  

• Europe PMC (PubMed Central) – an online database offering free access to published biomedical research
• Investigating the effects of open sharing commitments
• Global Infectious Disease Ethics Collaborative (GLIDE) – a platform for identifying and analysing ethical issues in infectious disease
• Emerging Cultures – a grant for a sociological and anthropological study of emerging research cultures in Wellcome’s 4-Year PhD Programmes
• In2Research – a social mobility programme that supports people from low socio-economic backgrounds to progress to postgraduate research

How this applies to your research  

As part of our goal to become a more inclusive funder and support research that is inclusive in design and practice, we made commitments to foster positive and inclusive research cultures as part of the application criteria on most of our awards.  

As part of this, our Discovery Award applications feature elements of the Resume for Research and Innovation (R4RI) , otherwise known as the Narrative CV. This gives researchers more flexibility in how they demonstrate their diverse skills and contributions to research.  

Wellcome has a number of research policies related to open and ethical research and we recommend that researchers consult these when designing funding applications and delivering successful awards. 

Appropriate engagement with key stakeholders throughout the research lifecycle supports the production of high-quality research that is rooted within the needs of those most affected. Wellcome will consider the costs of delivering engaged research within funding applications.

Looking for research funding?

Wellcome does not have a Research Environment funding scheme, however, it is a theme within all research grant funding and may be a criterion within other procurement processes.

Dan O’Connor

Head of Research Environment

Carleigh Krubiner

Bioethics Lead

Shomari Lewis-Wilson

Senior Manager, Research Culture and Communities

If you have general enquiries or ideas related to our Research Environment work, please contact us on

[email protected]

Related content  

Diversity and inclusion: helping more ideas thrive

Let's reimagine how we work together

Open research

How to do Research on Environment

Besides the interaction of human activities that contribute to these ecological and environmental concerns, many other key factors or disciplines play a direct role in the study and research of environmental science topics, including biology, chemistry, engineering, geology, and physics, as well as economics, politics, psychology, and sociology. Thus, your research paper on environmental science subjects most likely will entail not only investigating your primary sources, described in this article, but also crossing over into other disciplines.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, selected subject headings.

Listed below is a sample of a few broad Library of Congress subject headings—made up of one word or more representing concepts under which all library holdings are divided and subdivided by subject—which you can search under and use as subject terms when searching online library catalogs for preliminary and/or additional research, such as books, audio and video recordings, and other references, related to your research paper topic. When researching materials on your topic, subject heading searching may be more productive than searching using simple keywords. However, keyword searching when using the right search method (Boolean, etc.) and combination of words can be equally effective in finding materials more closely relevant to your topic.

Suggested Topics for Ecology and Environment Research

• Air Pollution
• Air Quality Management
• Conservation of Natural Resources
• Deforestation
• Environmental Health
• Environmental Law
• Environmental Law, International
• Environmental Protection
• Fishery Law and Legislation
• Hazardous Waste Sites
• Medical Wastes
• Refuse and Refuse Disposal
• Renewable Natural Resources
• Soil Pollution
• Sustainable Development
• Water Pollution

Selected Keyword Search Strategies and Guides

Most online library indexes and abstracts and full-text article databases offer basic and advanced “keyword” searching of virtually every subject. In this case, combine keyword terms that best define your thesis question or topic using the Boolean search method (employing “and” or “or”) to find research most suitable to your topic.

If your topic is “global warming and renewable natural resources,” for example, enter “global warming” and “renewable natural resources” with “and” on the same line to locate sources directly compatible with the primary focus of your research paper. To find research on more specific aspects of your topic, alternate one new keyword at a time with the primary keyword of your topic with “and” in between them (for example, “global warming and causes,” “global warming and health,” “global warming and pollution,” “global warming and solutions,” etc.).

For additional help with keyword searching, navigation or user guides for online indexes and databases by many leading providers—including Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, EBSCO, H.W. Wilson, OCLC, Ovid Technologies, ProQuest, and Thomson Gale—are posted with direct links on library Web sites to guides providing specific instruction to using whichever database you want to search. They provide additional guidance on how to customize and maximize your search, including advanced searching techniques and grouping of words and phrases using the Boolean search method—of your topic, of bibliographic records, and of full-text articles, and other documents related to your subject.

Selected Source and Subject Guides

Encyclopedia of Environmental Information Sources: A Subject Guide to about 34,000 Print and Other Sources of Information on All Aspects of the Environment , edited by Sarojini Balachandran, 1,813 pages (Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, 1993)

Environmental Education: A Guide to Information Sources , by William B. Stapp and Mary Dawn Liston, 225 pages (Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, 1975)

In addition to these sources of research, most college and university libraries offer online subject guides arranged by subject on the library’s Web page; others also list searchable course-related “LibGuides” by subject. Each guide lists more recommended published and Web sources—including books and references, journal, newspaper and magazines indexes, full-text article databases, Web sites, and even research tutorials—that you can access to expand your research on more specific issues and relevant to your subject.

Selected Books and References

Atlases and almanacs.

AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment , by Paul Harrison and Fred Pearce; foreword by Peter H. Raven, 216 pages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001)

This atlas colorfully illustrates the relationship between the environment and the world population and is an excellent source of statistical data. Includes an index by topic.

Earth Almanac: An Annual Geophysical Review of the State of the Planet , 2nd ed., 576 pages (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press, 2001)

Arranged by subject area, entries offer a treasure trove of statistical environmental information. Appendixes provide additional worthwhile information, such as abbreviations, conversion formulas, Earth facts, a geologic time line, a glossary of terms, international and national scientific programs, and treaties and laws.

Environmental Engineering Dictionary , 4th ed., edited by C.C. Lee, 968 pages (Rockville, Md.: Government Institutes, 2005)

Seemingly every technical and regulatory engineering term used in environmental science—more than 14,000 in all—is defined and explained in this dictionary. Definitions conform to the Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements for statutes, regulations, and environmental science terms. Reference sources used for most definitions are also listed. An appendix features an extensive list of environmental acronyms.

Encyclopedias

Encyclopedia of Environmental Science , edited by David E. Alexander and Rhodes W. Fairbridge, 786 pages (Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999)

More than 1,000 entries, arranged in alphabetical order, highlight this encyclopedic volume covering key environmental terms and topics. Most entries include a list of references, including useful print and Web resources. Also provided is a series of useful appendixes, including a directory of environmental organizations, listings of endangered species by state, a timeline of environmental history, and Web sites by subject.

Encyclopedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society , edited by Andrew S. Goudie and David J. Cuff, 2 vols., 1,424 pages (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003)

This authoritative guide features 320 essay-length articles, listed from A to Z, covering natural and artificial changes to the Earth’s biological, chemical, and physical systems. Highlighting the text are graphs, maps, and photos. Also included is a bibliography of sources.

Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change , edited by Ted Munn, 5 vols. (New York: Wiley, 2002)

Five-volume set featuring 500 in-depth articles, 100 biographies, and 150 definitions. Articles are arranged by subject and contain abstracts, bibliographies, photos, and diagrams. Each volume includes an alphabetical list of articles in the back. This well-researched and well-written reference series is divided as follows: volume 1, The Earth System: Physical and Chemical Dimensions of Global Environmental Change; volume 2, The Earth System: Biological and Ecological Dimensions of Global Environmental Change; volume 3, Causes and Consequences of Global Environmental Change; volume 4, Responding to Global Environmental Change; and volume 5, Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.

Environmental Encyclopedia , 3rd ed., edited by Marci Bortman et al., 1,641 pages (Detroit, Mich.: Thomson-Gale, 2002)

Available in print and online via Gale Virtual Reference Library, this fully revised and updated edition includes many well-written, nontechnical articles offering critical analysis, current status, and possible solutions to the gamut of environmental issues facing the world today.

International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics , edited by John Barry and E. Gene Frankland, 544 pages (London and New York: Routledge, 2001)

This A–Z encyclopedia covers environmental political issues around the world through more than 500 insightful entries that include a list of sources for further reading. Also provided is an index of entries arranged by major themes.

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Energy , edited by John Zumerchik, 3 vols. (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000)

Covers the broad spectrum of energy topics with more than 250 illustrated articles written by academic scholars and experts. Detailed biographies of key figures in the science and energy fields are also included. An electronic version of the entire contents of this three-volume set is available online via Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Macmillan Encyclopedia of the Environment , edited by Stephen R. Kellert, 6 vols. (New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA; London: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International, 1997)

This full-color, beautifully illustrated six-volume reference series provides coverage of virtually everything about the environment, from basic information to recent developments. Detailed entries focus on such topics as biology, chemistry, climate and weather, ecology, endangered species, disasters, evolution, genetics, land use, natural resources, pollution, population growth, waste management, and more.

Pollution A to Z , edited by Richard Stapleton, 2 vols., 757 pages (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003)

Approximately 264 in-depth articles, written by leading scientists, educators, professionals, and other experts, covering all areas of pollution—air, land, space, and water—make up this important volume. Entries are wide ranging in scope, discussing current issues, key concepts, research, and legislation. Many topical issues are likewise critically examined, including asbestos and carbon monoxide and CFC pollution, among others. Also reviewed are social movements and organizations leading the fight against pollution, such as Earth First and the Green Party. This volume is also available by subscription online via Gale Virtual Reference Library.

The Wiley Encyclopedia of Energy and the Environment , edited by Attilio Bisio and Sharon Boots, 1,592 pages (New York: Wiley, 1997)

This acclaimed encyclopedia covers a wide range of energy and environmental topics, arranged alphabetically with lengthy entries illustrated by diagrams and photos. Bibliographies are listed at the end of each entry for further research in the respective subject area.

Global Environment Outlook , 4th ed., 576 pages (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)

Region-by-region coverage of current environmental conditions around the globe is contained in this important reference source. Policy responses, future recommendations, and perspectives on many key environmental issues are discussed. Statistical data as it applies to the global environmental conditions are included, along with an index by topic.

The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment , by Robert Prescott-Allen, in cooperation with International Development Research Centre et al., 342 pages (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001)

Highlighting this 342-page volume is recent data on the quality of life and the environment in 180 countries worldwide. Indicators examined include air quality, energy use, global atmosphere, land health, protected areas, water quality, and resource pressures, among others, of each country. Included in the first section of the book are maps and charts and, in the second half, detailed data tables and methodologies used in the assessment of each country.

World Resources 2000–2001: People and Ecosystems, the Fraying Web of Life , 400 pages (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 2001)

Published by the World Resources Institute, this printed edition, also available online, reviews global environmental trends as they relate to the world’s population, food and water supply, consumption and waste, energy use, climate changes, and well-being of humans. Entries are arranged by ecosystem and include key environmental and social indicators for more than 150 countries. An index offers easy access to specific topics.

Selected Full-Text Article Databases

Academic Search Elite  (Ipswich, Mass.: EBSCO Publishing, EBSCOHost, indexing/abstracting: 1984– , full text: 1990– )

Indexing a wide range of subjects, this premier academic database also includes general environment and environment-related journals, including Audubon, Ecology, Environmental Ethics, Environmental Science and Technology, Environment, Journal of Environmental Health, Oceanus, and Sierra.

Annual Reviews  (Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1932– )

Current collection of critical reviews written by leading scientists, published yearly. Subjects explored include energy and the environment, ecology and systematics, genetics, and many more.

Biological and Agricultural Index Plus  (Bronx, N.Y.: H.W. Wilson Co., indexing: 1983– , full text: 1997– )

More than 225 peer-reviewed journals in agriculture and the life sciences are abstracted and indexed, including full-text articles, from such disciplines as ecology, environmental science, and forestry via WilsonWeb.

Environmental Issues on File CD-ROM  (New York: Facts On File, Inc.)

Offers current environmental facts, figures, and information in full text with maps, charts, numerical data, and detailed diagrams on a wide range of environmental and ecological issues and subjects, including atmospheric pollution, catastrophic weather events, environmental disasters, land and sea pollution, and more.

Expanded Academic ASAP  (Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale InfoTrac, 1980– )

Like Academic Source Elite, this popular InfoTrac library database also indexes articles published in many leading general environment and environment-related journals, including some of the same titles, such as Audubon, Ecology, Environmental Ethics, Environmental Science and Technology, Environment, Journal of Environmental Health, Oceanus, and Sierra.

JSTOR  (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal Storage Project, 1996– )

Full-text journal collection that offers direct access to numerous ecology reference sources, including the Journal of Ecology, the Journal of Animal Ecology, and Ecology.

LexisNexis Environmental  (Dayton, Ohio: LexisNexis, 1970– )

Contains abstracts and full-text news from a large variety of sources, including scholarly and professional journals, conference papers and proceedings, federal and state government reports, major daily newspapers, consumer and trade magazines, newsletters, law reviews, administrative codes, case law, regulatory agency decisions, waste sites, and hazardous material data.

Wilson Select Plu s (Bronx, N.Y.: H.W. Wilson Co., 1994– )

Web accessible through OCLC FirstSearch, this searchable collection includes abstracts and full-text articles from more than 1,300 publications. Includes selected full-text articles from H.W. Wilson’s Business Abstracts, General Sciences Abstracts, Humanities Abstracts, Readers’ Guide, and Social Sciences Abstracts online databases.

Selected Periodicals

Audubon Magazine  (New York: National Audubon Society, 1899– , bimonthly)

Published by the National Audubon Society, one of the oldest and largest conservation societies in the United States, this bimonthly magazine covers a broad spectrum of conservation and environmental topics in each issue. The magazine is beautifully photographed and illustrated, and the primary focus of articles is on birds and wildlife and their habitats. Available electronically in full text from Expanded Academic ASAP (1997– ).

The Ecologist  (Wadebridge, U.K.: Ecosystems Ltd., 1970– , monthly)

Possibly the most widely read environment magazine, The Ecologist, read by some 200,000 subscribers in 150 countries, features authoritative articles on issues related to the environment. It examines such major environmental challenges as rain forest destruction, climatic changes, and environmental and political agendas around the world.

Ecology  (Washington, D.C.: Ecological Society of America, etc., 1920– , annually)

Published annually since 1920 by the Ecological Society of America, a Washington, D.C.–based nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of scientists, Ecology magazine pays particular attention to all aspects of ecology in its wide-ranging articles. Included are statistical reports, features, articles, notes, comments, and data papers covering new concepts, and analytical, experimental, historical, and theoretical approaches applicable to species, populations, communities, or ecosystems. Offered in print and electronic form, full-text articles from past issues are accessible through JSTOR from the first volume through 1998.

Electronic Green Journal  (Moscow, Idaho: Electronic Green Journal, 1994– , biannual)

Web-based ( http://escholarship.org/uc/uclalib_egj ) peer-reviewed professional journal devoted to international environmental topics. Subjects covered include assessment, conservation, development, disposal, education, hazards, pollution, resources, technology, and treatment in the fields of ecology and environmental sciences.

Environmental Science and Technology  (Easton, Pa.: American Chemical Society, 1967– , annual)

Published by one of the oldest scientific associations in the world, Environmental Science and Technology delivers authoritative and comprehensive articles about the latest technological advances, regulations, policies, and scientific research in the environmental arena. Topics in past issues have included everything from air quality modeling, to risk from fine particles, to dioxin risk assessment, to recycled wastewater.

EPA Journal  (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1975–95, bimonthly)

First published in 1975, this bimonthly journal, published by the Environmental Protection agency (EPA), offered a national and global perspective on key environmental issues. Articles focused on work within the EPA and federal government and private sector to solve environmental problems. Publication was discontinued with the winter 1995 issue. Full-text articles are available of past journals through WilsonWeb beginning with the September/October 1982 issue.

National Wildlife  (Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, 1962– , monthly)

Since publication of its first issue in December 1962, this monthly magazine has covered such topics as nature and the environment for conservation-minded readers. Issues feature natural history and outdoor adventure articles, ecological news items, and full-color photo galleries. Content for back issues from the June–July 2005 issue to the present can be viewed at  http://www.nwf.org/Home/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife.aspx .

Sierra  (San Francisco, Calif.: Sierra Club, 1893– , bimonthly)

One of the oldest environmental journals in the United States, this award-winning, general-interest environmental magazine, published by the Sierra Club, a San Francisco–based nonprofit group, celebrates the wonders of nature through expertly written and strikingly photographed adventure and travel features. Showcased in each issue are travel destinations in natural settings, products, services, lists of Sierra-sponsored trips, and much more.

Worldwatch  (Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1988– , bimonthly)

Published by the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit environmental advocacy group, this bimonthly magazine focuses on current developments in many related areas. Issues contain articles discussing current environmental trends worldwide, such as climate change, deforestation, population growth, species extinction, and economic and environmental policies.

Selected Web Sites

EnviroLink Network  ( http://envirolink.org/ )

This site, developed by the nonprofit organization EnviroLink, is one of the most comprehensive resources on the Web on the subject of the environment. Access is provided to literally thousands of online environmental resources.

Environmental Defense  ( http://www.edf.org/ )

Founded to “protect human health, restore our oceans and ecosystems, and curb global warming,” this New York–based nonprofit environmental group offers current information on environmental topics.

Environmental News Network  ( http://www.enn.com/ )

Online newspaper featuring environmental news stories, in-depth accounts, press releases, and other information.

Environmental Quality Statistics  (http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/reports/statistics/)

Features statistical tables created by the U.S. Department of Energy and published in its annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Global Warming: Early Warning Signs  ( http://www.climatehotmap.org/ )

This online map illustrates the consequences of global warming and climate changes. Maps are available by region, and the site includes various indicators, references, and teaching resources on the subject.

Know Your Environment  ( http://www.ansp.org/ )

Published by the Environmental Associates in association with the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, this published series offers direct access to articles about natural resources, human influence, public policy, and technology and environment.

MapCruzin.com  ( http://www.mapcruzin.com/index.html )

The home page of the Clary Meuser Research Network, this site provides tools and resources devoted to improving social and environmental conditions.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions formerly Pew Center on Global Climate Change  ( http://www.c2es.org/ )

Established in 1998 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent organization to address global climate change, the Pew Center offers news, basic information, and in-depth reports about global warming and related environmental issues.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  ( http://www.epa.gov/ )

This official home page of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers an abundance of resources, including an excellent data source called EnviroFacts ( http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html ).

Water Quality Information Center  ( http://wqic.nal.usda.gov/ )

The National Library of Agriculture Water Quality Information Center page provides electronic access to information about water and agriculture. The site includes links to bibliographies, databases, discussion lists, environmental news, and much more.

World Resource Institute  ( http://www.wri.org/ )

This Web page provides links to topical environmental research facts and figures, special reports, and comprehensive data on a broad array of environmental, economic and social issues.

The World’s Water  ( http://www.worldwater.org/ )

Developed and maintained by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Environment, Development and Security, this Web page presents current information and data on the world’s freshwater resources. Includes links to many organizations, institutions, and individuals working on a wide range of global freshwater problems and solutions.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• How to write a research paper

Last updated

11 January 2024

Reviewed by

With proper planning, knowledge, and framework, completing a research paper can be a fulfilling and exciting experience. 

Though it might initially sound slightly intimidating, this guide will help you embrace the challenge. 

By documenting your findings, you can inspire others and make a difference in your field. Here's how you can make your research paper unique and comprehensive.

• What is a research paper?

Research papers allow you to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of a particular topic. These papers are usually lengthier and more detailed than typical essays, requiring deeper insight into the chosen topic.

To write a research paper, you must first choose a topic that interests you and is relevant to the field of study. Once you’ve selected your topic, gathering as many relevant resources as possible, including books, scholarly articles, credible websites, and other academic materials, is essential. You must then read and analyze these sources, summarizing their key points and identifying gaps in the current research.

You can formulate your ideas and opinions once you thoroughly understand the existing research. To get there might involve conducting original research, gathering data, or analyzing existing data sets. It could also involve presenting an original argument or interpretation of the existing research.

Writing a successful research paper involves presenting your findings clearly and engagingly, which might involve using charts, graphs, or other visual aids to present your data and using concise language to explain your findings. You must also ensure your paper adheres to relevant academic formatting guidelines, including proper citations and references.

Overall, writing a research paper requires a significant amount of time, effort, and attention to detail. However, it is also an enriching experience that allows you to delve deeply into a subject that interests you and contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your chosen field.

• How long should a research paper be?

Research papers are deep dives into a topic. Therefore, they tend to be longer pieces of work than essays or opinion pieces. 

However, a suitable length depends on the complexity of the topic and your level of expertise. For instance, are you a first-year college student or an experienced professional? 

Also, remember that the best research papers provide valuable information for the benefit of others. Therefore, the quality of information matters most, not necessarily the length. Being concise is valuable.

Following these best practice steps will help keep your process simple and productive:

1. Gaining a deep understanding of any expectations

Before diving into your intended topic or beginning the research phase, take some time to orient yourself. Suppose there’s a specific topic assigned to you. In that case, it’s essential to deeply understand the question and organize your planning and approach in response. Pay attention to the key requirements and ensure you align your writing accordingly. 

This preparation step entails

Deeply understanding the task or assignment

Being clear about the expected format and length

Familiarizing yourself with the citation and referencing requirements 

Understanding any defined limits for your research contribution

Where applicable, speaking to your professor or research supervisor for further clarification

2. Choose your research topic

Select a research topic that aligns with both your interests and available resources. Ideally, focus on a field where you possess significant experience and analytical skills. In crafting your research paper, it's crucial to go beyond summarizing existing data and contribute fresh insights to the chosen area.

Consider narrowing your focus to a specific aspect of the topic. For example, if exploring the link between technology and mental health, delve into how social media use during the pandemic impacts the well-being of college students. Conducting interviews and surveys with students could provide firsthand data and unique perspectives, adding substantial value to the existing knowledge.

When finalizing your topic, adhere to legal and ethical norms in the relevant area (this ensures the integrity of your research, protects participants' rights, upholds intellectual property standards, and ensures transparency and accountability). Following these principles not only maintains the credibility of your work but also builds trust within your academic or professional community.

For instance, in writing about medical research, consider legal and ethical norms , including patient confidentiality laws and informed consent requirements. Similarly, if analyzing user data on social media platforms, be mindful of data privacy regulations, ensuring compliance with laws governing personal information collection and use. Aligning with legal and ethical standards not only avoids potential issues but also underscores the responsible conduct of your research.

3. Gather preliminary research

Once you’ve landed on your topic, it’s time to explore it further. You’ll want to discover more about available resources and existing research relevant to your assignment at this stage. 

This exploratory phase is vital as you may discover issues with your original idea or realize you have insufficient resources to explore the topic effectively. This key bit of groundwork allows you to redirect your research topic in a different, more feasible, or more relevant direction if necessary. 

Spending ample time at this stage ensures you gather everything you need, learn as much as you can about the topic, and discover gaps where the topic has yet to be sufficiently covered, offering an opportunity to research it further. 

4. Define your research question

To produce a well-structured and focused paper, it is imperative to formulate a clear and precise research question that will guide your work. Your research question must be informed by the existing literature and tailored to the scope and objectives of your project. By refining your focus, you can produce a thoughtful and engaging paper that effectively communicates your ideas to your readers.

5. Write a thesis statement

A thesis statement is a one-to-two-sentence summary of your research paper's main argument or direction. It serves as an overall guide to summarize the overall intent of the research paper for you and anyone wanting to know more about the research.

A strong thesis statement is:

Concise and clear: Explain your case in simple sentences (avoid covering multiple ideas). It might help to think of this section as an elevator pitch.

Specific: Ensure that there is no ambiguity in your statement and that your summary covers the points argued in the paper.

Debatable: A thesis statement puts forward a specific argument––it is not merely a statement but a debatable point that can be analyzed and discussed.

Here are three thesis statement examples from different disciplines:

Psychology thesis example: "We're studying adults aged 25-40 to see if taking short breaks for mindfulness can help with stress. Our goal is to find practical ways to manage anxiety better."

Environmental science thesis example: "This research paper looks into how having more city parks might make the air cleaner and keep people healthier. I want to find out if more green spaces means breathing fewer carcinogens in big cities."

UX research thesis example: "This study focuses on improving mobile banking for older adults using ethnographic research, eye-tracking analysis, and interactive prototyping. We investigate the usefulness of eye-tracking analysis with older individuals, aiming to spark debate and offer fresh perspectives on UX design and digital inclusivity for the aging population."

6. Conduct in-depth research

A research paper doesn’t just include research that you’ve uncovered from other papers and studies but your fresh insights, too. You will seek to become an expert on your topic––understanding the nuances in the current leading theories. You will analyze existing research and add your thinking and discoveries.  It's crucial to conduct well-designed research that is rigorous, robust, and based on reliable sources. Suppose a research paper lacks evidence or is biased. In that case, it won't benefit the academic community or the general public. Therefore, examining the topic thoroughly and furthering its understanding through high-quality research is essential. That usually means conducting new research. Depending on the area under investigation, you may conduct surveys, interviews, diary studies , or observational research to uncover new insights or bolster current claims.

7. Determine supporting evidence

Not every piece of research you’ve discovered will be relevant to your research paper. It’s important to categorize the most meaningful evidence to include alongside your discoveries. It's important to include evidence that doesn't support your claims to avoid exclusion bias and ensure a fair research paper.

8. Write a research paper outline

Before diving in and writing the whole paper, start with an outline. It will help you to see if more research is needed, and it will provide a framework by which to write a more compelling paper. Your supervisor may even request an outline to approve before beginning to write the first draft of the full paper. An outline will include your topic, thesis statement, key headings, short summaries of the research, and your arguments.

9. Write your first draft

Once you feel confident about your outline and sources, it’s time to write your first draft. While penning a long piece of content can be intimidating, if you’ve laid the groundwork, you will have a structure to help you move steadily through each section. To keep up motivation and inspiration, it’s often best to keep the pace quick. Stopping for long periods can interrupt your flow and make jumping back in harder than writing when things are fresh in your mind.

10. Cite your sources correctly

It's always a good practice to give credit where it's due, and the same goes for citing any works that have influenced your paper. Building your arguments on credible references adds value and authenticity to your research. In the formatting guidelines section, you’ll find an overview of different citation styles (MLA, CMOS, or APA), which will help you meet any publishing or academic requirements and strengthen your paper's credibility. It is essential to follow the guidelines provided by your school or the publication you are submitting to ensure the accuracy and relevance of your citations.

11. Ensure your work is original

It is crucial to ensure the originality of your paper, as plagiarism can lead to serious consequences. To avoid plagiarism, you should use proper paraphrasing and quoting techniques. Paraphrasing is rewriting a text in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. Quoting involves directly citing the source. Giving credit to the original author or source is essential whenever you borrow their ideas or words. You can also use plagiarism detection tools such as Scribbr or Grammarly to check the originality of your paper. These tools compare your draft writing to a vast database of online sources. If you find any accidental plagiarism, you should correct it immediately by rephrasing or citing the source.

12. Revise, edit, and proofread

One of the essential qualities of excellent writers is their ability to understand the importance of editing and proofreading. Even though it's tempting to call it a day once you've finished your writing, editing your work can significantly improve its quality. It's natural to overlook the weaker areas when you've just finished writing a paper. Therefore, it's best to take a break of a day or two, or even up to a week, to refresh your mind. This way, you can return to your work with a new perspective. After some breathing room, you can spot any inconsistencies, spelling and grammar errors, typos, or missing citations and correct them. 

• The best research paper format 

The format of your research paper should align with the requirements set forth by your college, school, or target publication. 

There is no one “best” format, per se. Depending on the stated requirements, you may need to include the following elements:

Title page: The title page of a research paper typically includes the title, author's name, and institutional affiliation and may include additional information such as a course name or instructor's name. 

Table of contents: Include a table of contents to make it easy for readers to find specific sections of your paper.

Abstract: The abstract is a summary of the purpose of the paper.

Methods : In this section, describe the research methods used. This may include collecting data , conducting interviews, or doing field research .

Results: Summarize the conclusions you drew from your research in this section.

Discussion: In this section, discuss the implications of your research . Be sure to mention any significant limitations to your approach and suggest areas for further research.

Tables, charts, and illustrations: Use tables, charts, and illustrations to help convey your research findings and make them easier to understand.

Works cited or reference page: Include a works cited or reference page to give credit to the sources that you used to conduct your research.

Bibliography: Provide a list of all the sources you consulted while conducting your research.

Dedication and acknowledgments : Optionally, you may include a dedication and acknowledgments section to thank individuals who helped you with your research.

• General style and formatting guidelines

Formatting your research paper means you can submit it to your college, journal, or other publications in compliance with their criteria.

Research papers tend to follow the American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA), or Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) guidelines.

Here’s how each style guide is typically used:

Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):

CMOS is a versatile style guide used for various types of writing. It's known for its flexibility and use in the humanities. CMOS provides guidelines for citations, formatting, and overall writing style. It allows for both footnotes and in-text citations, giving writers options based on their preferences or publication requirements.

American Psychological Association (APA):

APA is common in the social sciences. It’s hailed for its clarity and emphasis on precision. It has specific rules for citing sources, creating references, and formatting papers. APA style uses in-text citations with an accompanying reference list. It's designed to convey information efficiently and is widely used in academic and scientific writing.

Modern Language Association (MLA):

MLA is widely used in the humanities, especially literature and language studies. It emphasizes the author-page format for in-text citations and provides guidelines for creating a "Works Cited" page. MLA is known for its focus on the author's name and the literary works cited. It’s frequently used in disciplines that prioritize literary analysis and critical thinking.

To confirm you're using the latest style guide, check the official website or publisher's site for updates, consult academic resources, and verify the guide's publication date. Online platforms and educational resources may also provide summaries and alerts about any revisions or additions to the style guide.

Citing sources

When working on your research paper, it's important to cite the sources you used properly. Your citation style will guide you through this process. Generally, there are three parts to citing sources in your research paper: 

First, provide a brief citation in the body of your essay. This is also known as a parenthetical or in-text citation. 

Second, include a full citation in the Reference list at the end of your paper. Different types of citations include in-text citations, footnotes, and reference lists. 

In-text citations include the author's surname and the date of the citation. 

Footnotes appear at the bottom of each page of your research paper. They may also be summarized within a reference list at the end of the paper. 

A reference list includes all of the research used within the paper at the end of the document. It should include the author, date, paper title, and publisher listed in the order that aligns with your citation style.

10 research paper writing tips:

Following some best practices is essential to writing a research paper that contributes to your field of study and creates a positive impact.

These tactics will help you structure your argument effectively and ensure your work benefits others:

Clear and precise language:  Ensure your language is unambiguous. Use academic language appropriately, but keep it simple. Also, provide clear takeaways for your audience.

Effective idea separation:  Organize the vast amount of information and sources in your paper with paragraphs and titles. Create easily digestible sections for your readers to navigate through.

Compelling intro:  Craft an engaging introduction that captures your reader's interest. Hook your audience and motivate them to continue reading.

Thorough revision and editing:  Take the time to review and edit your paper comprehensively. Use tools like Grammarly to detect and correct small, overlooked errors.

Thesis precision:  Develop a clear and concise thesis statement that guides your paper. Ensure that your thesis aligns with your research's overall purpose and contribution.

Logical flow of ideas:  Maintain a logical progression throughout the paper. Use transitions effectively to connect different sections and maintain coherence.

Critical evaluation of sources:  Evaluate and critically assess the relevance and reliability of your sources. Ensure that your research is based on credible and up-to-date information.

Thematic consistency:  Maintain a consistent theme throughout the paper. Ensure that all sections contribute cohesively to the overall argument.

Relevant supporting evidence:  Provide concise and relevant evidence to support your arguments. Avoid unnecessary details that may distract from the main points.

Embrace counterarguments:  Acknowledge and address opposing views to strengthen your position. Show that you have considered alternative arguments in your field.

7 research tips 

If you want your paper to not only be well-written but also contribute to the progress of human knowledge, consider these tips to take your paper to the next level:

Selecting the appropriate topic: The topic you select should align with your area of expertise, comply with the requirements of your project, and have sufficient resources for a comprehensive investigation.

Use academic databases: Academic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR offer a wealth of research papers that can help you discover everything you need to know about your chosen topic.

Critically evaluate sources: It is important not to accept research findings at face value. Instead, it is crucial to critically analyze the information to avoid jumping to conclusions or overlooking important details. A well-written research paper requires a critical analysis with thorough reasoning to support claims.

Diversify your sources: Expand your research horizons by exploring a variety of sources beyond the standard databases. Utilize books, conference proceedings, and interviews to gather diverse perspectives and enrich your understanding of the topic.

Take detailed notes: Detailed note-taking is crucial during research and can help you form the outline and body of your paper.

Stay up on trends: Keep abreast of the latest developments in your field by regularly checking for recent publications. Subscribe to newsletters, follow relevant journals, and attend conferences to stay informed about emerging trends and advancements. 

Engage in peer review: Seek feedback from peers or mentors to ensure the rigor and validity of your research . Peer review helps identify potential weaknesses in your methodology and strengthens the overall credibility of your findings.

• The real-world impact of research papers

Writing a research paper is more than an academic or business exercise. The experience provides an opportunity to explore a subject in-depth, broaden one's understanding, and arrive at meaningful conclusions. With careful planning, dedication, and hard work, writing a research paper can be a fulfilling and enriching experience contributing to advancing knowledge.

How do I publish my research paper? 

Many academics wish to publish their research papers. While challenging, your paper might get traction if it covers new and well-written information. To publish your research paper, find a target publication, thoroughly read their guidelines, format your paper accordingly, and send it to them per their instructions. You may need to include a cover letter, too. After submission, your paper may be peer-reviewed by experts to assess its legitimacy, quality, originality, and methodology. Following review, you will be informed by the publication whether they have accepted or rejected your paper. 

What is a good opening sentence for a research paper? 

Beginning your research paper with a compelling introduction can ensure readers are interested in going further. A relevant quote, a compelling statistic, or a bold argument can start the paper and hook your reader. Remember, though, that the most important aspect of a research paper is the quality of the information––not necessarily your ability to storytell, so ensure anything you write aligns with your goals.

Research paper vs. a research proposal—what’s the difference?

While some may confuse research papers and proposals, they are different documents. 

A research proposal comes before a research paper. It is a detailed document that outlines an intended area of exploration. It includes the research topic, methodology, timeline, sources, and potential conclusions. Research proposals are often required when seeking approval to conduct research. 

A research paper is a summary of research findings. A research paper follows a structured format to present those findings and construct an argument or conclusion.

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

• 10 research paper

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

Research Methodology refers to the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research, investigate problems, and gather data and information for a specific purpose. It involves the techniques and procedures used to identify, collect , analyze , and interpret data to answer research questions or solve research problems . Moreover, They are philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process.

Structure of Research Methodology

Research methodology formats can vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project, but the following is a basic example of a structure for a research methodology section:

I. Introduction

• Provide an overview of the research problem and the need for a research methodology section
• Outline the main research questions and objectives

II. Research Design

• Explain the research design chosen and why it is appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Discuss any alternative research designs considered and why they were not chosen
• Describe the research setting and participants (if applicable)

III. Data Collection Methods

• Describe the methods used to collect data (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations)
• Explain how the data collection methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or instruments used for data collection

IV. Data Analysis Methods

• Describe the methods used to analyze the data (e.g., statistical analysis, content analysis )
• Explain how the data analysis methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or software used for data analysis

V. Ethical Considerations

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise from the research and how they were addressed
• Explain how informed consent was obtained (if applicable)
• Detail any measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity

VI. Limitations

• Identify any potential limitations of the research methodology and how they may impact the results and conclusions

VII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key aspects of the research methodology section
• Explain how the research methodology addresses the research question(s) and objectives

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. This type of research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Qualitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as words, images, and observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena, to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular topic, and to generate hypotheses.

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research. This approach can be particularly useful for studies that aim to explore complex phenomena and to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Case Study Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases. Case studies are often used in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to gain a detailed understanding of a particular individual or group.

Action Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves a collaborative process between researchers and practitioners to identify and solve real-world problems. Action research is often used in education, healthcare, and social work.

Experimental Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables to observe their effects on a dependent variable. Experimental research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Survey Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is often used to study attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the development of theories based on the data collected during the research process. Grounded theory is often used in sociology and anthropology to generate theories about social phenomena.

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

Research Methodology for Investigating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Symptoms of Depression in Adults

Introduction:

The aim of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. To achieve this objective, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach.

Research Design:

The study will follow a pre-test and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group receiving CBT and a control group receiving no intervention. The study will also include a qualitative component, in which semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to explore their experiences of receiving CBT.

Participants:

Participants will be recruited from community mental health clinics in the local area. The sample will consist of 100 adults aged 18-65 years old who meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.

Intervention :

The experimental group will receive 12 weekly sessions of CBT, each lasting 60 minutes. The intervention will be delivered by licensed mental health professionals who have been trained in CBT. The control group will receive no intervention during the study period.

Data Collection:

Quantitative data will be collected through the use of standardized measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants from the experimental group. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period, and will explore participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Ethical Considerations:

This study will comply with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Participants will provide informed consent before participating in the study, and their privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. Any adverse events or reactions will be reported and managed appropriately.

Data Management:

All data collected will be kept confidential and stored securely using password-protected databases. Identifying information will be removed from qualitative data transcripts to ensure participants’ anonymity.

Limitations:

One potential limitation of this study is that it only focuses on one type of psychotherapy, CBT, and may not generalize to other types of therapy or interventions. Another limitation is that the study will only include participants from community mental health clinics, which may not be representative of the general population.

Conclusion:

This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. By using a randomized controlled trial and a mixed-methods approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CBT and depression. The results of this study will have important implications for the development of effective treatments for depression in clinical settings.

How to Write Research Methodology

Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It’s an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings. Here are the steps to write a research methodology:

• Start by explaining your research question: Begin the methodology section by restating your research question and explaining why it’s important. This helps readers understand the purpose of your research and the rationale behind your methods.
• Describe your research design: Explain the overall approach you used to conduct research. This could be a qualitative or quantitative research design, experimental or non-experimental, case study or survey, etc. Discuss the advantages and limitations of the chosen design.
• Discuss your sample: Describe the participants or subjects you included in your study. Include details such as their demographics, sampling method, sample size, and any exclusion criteria used.
• Describe your data collection methods : Explain how you collected data from your participants. This could include surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires, or experiments. Include details on how you obtained informed consent, how you administered the tools, and how you minimized the risk of bias.
• Explain your data analysis techniques: Describe the methods you used to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, content analysis, thematic analysis, or discourse analysis. Explain how you dealt with missing data, outliers, and any other issues that arose during the analysis.
• Discuss the validity and reliability of your research : Explain how you ensured the validity and reliability of your study. This could include measures such as triangulation, member checking, peer review, or inter-coder reliability.
• Acknowledge any limitations of your research: Discuss any limitations of your study, including any potential threats to validity or generalizability. This helps readers understand the scope of your findings and how they might apply to other contexts.
• Provide a summary: End the methodology section by summarizing the methods and techniques you used to conduct your research. This provides a clear overview of your research methodology and helps readers understand the process you followed to arrive at your findings.

When to Write Research Methodology

Research methodology is typically written after the research proposal has been approved and before the actual research is conducted. It should be written prior to data collection and analysis, as it provides a clear roadmap for the research project.

The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.

The methodology should be written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be based on established research practices and standards. It is important to provide enough detail so that the reader can understand how the research was conducted and evaluate the validity of the results.

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

• To identify the research problem: Research methodology is used to identify the research problem, which is the first step in conducting any research.
• To design the research: Research methodology helps in designing the research by selecting the appropriate research method, research design, and sampling technique.
• To collect data: Research methodology provides a systematic approach to collect data from primary and secondary sources.
• To analyze data: Research methodology helps in analyzing the collected data using various statistical and non-statistical techniques.
• To test hypotheses: Research methodology provides a framework for testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data.
• To generalize findings: Research methodology helps in generalizing the findings of the research to the target population.
• To develop theories : Research methodology is used to develop new theories and modify existing theories based on the findings of the research.
• To evaluate programs and policies : Research methodology is used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies by collecting data and analyzing it.
• To improve decision-making: Research methodology helps in making informed decisions by providing reliable and valid data.

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

• To guide the research process: Research methodology provides a systematic framework for conducting research. It helps researchers to plan their research, define their research questions, and select appropriate methods and techniques for collecting and analyzing data.
• To ensure research quality: Research methodology helps researchers to ensure that their research is rigorous, reliable, and valid. It provides guidelines for minimizing bias and error in data collection and analysis, and for ensuring that research findings are accurate and trustworthy.
• To replicate research: Research methodology provides a clear and detailed account of the research process, making it possible for other researchers to replicate the study and verify its findings.
• To advance knowledge: Research methodology enables researchers to generate new knowledge and to contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. It provides a means for testing hypotheses, exploring new ideas, and discovering new insights.
• To inform decision-making: Research methodology provides evidence-based information that can inform policy and decision-making in a variety of fields, including medicine, public health, education, and business.

Advantages of Research Methodology

Research methodology has several advantages that make it a valuable tool for conducting research in various fields. Here are some of the key advantages of research methodology:

• Systematic and structured approach : Research methodology provides a systematic and structured approach to conducting research, which ensures that the research is conducted in a rigorous and comprehensive manner.
• Objectivity : Research methodology aims to ensure objectivity in the research process, which means that the research findings are based on evidence and not influenced by personal bias or subjective opinions.
• Replicability : Research methodology ensures that research can be replicated by other researchers, which is essential for validating research findings and ensuring their accuracy.
• Reliability : Research methodology aims to ensure that the research findings are reliable, which means that they are consistent and can be depended upon.
• Validity : Research methodology ensures that the research findings are valid, which means that they accurately reflect the research question or hypothesis being tested.
• Efficiency : Research methodology provides a structured and efficient way of conducting research, which helps to save time and resources.
• Flexibility : Research methodology allows researchers to choose the most appropriate research methods and techniques based on the research question, data availability, and other relevant factors.
• Scope for innovation: Research methodology provides scope for innovation and creativity in designing research studies and developing new research techniques.

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Why study the research environment.

By Clément Gévaudan 07/03/2016

It is a striking fact that in the top global university rankings developing countries’ universities are notable by their near absence. Out of the 500 best universities in the Shanghai Ranking 2015, only four come from Sub-Saharan Africa and they are all South African. Meanwhile, Iran and India are the only two lower-middle income countries to appear in the ranking, next to a stunning 87% of high income countries. Looking at the number of publications in social sciences, high income countries accounted for 80% of them in 2014. The question of why developing country universities perform poorly is one that is significantly under researched, particularly regarding capacity building processes. And it is therefore one that we will propose to tackle in this blog with a series of experiences on the research environment.

Figure 1: Distribution of top 500 universities and publications in social sciences per region Source: Scopus and Shanghai Ranking 2015

Why should this absence bother us? The actual research capacities of individuals or universities cannot be called into question, without an understanding of the research infrastructure and institutions which directly influence the research process by either facilitating – or slowing down – knowledge production. We know that by including more southern voices in the production of knowledge, the world will gain a much better understanding of local contexts. We also know that mobilising social science research for policymaking in developing and transition countries becomes easier, and more accurate, when research is produced locally. Together, these reasons make a convincing case for supporting and empowering local research processes.

The Global Development Network (GDN), through its mission to empower researchers in developing countries and mobilise research for policymaking, is convinced that implementing contextualised and informed policy is possible only when local academics in social sciences have access to a full range of services and options. To achieve this, it is essential to first study the national research environment to facilitate locally grounded, sustainable, social and economic development. This covers inter alia: recent and international literature and data; networks and collaborations throughout regions and disciplines; professional management and leadership of research; and of course diverse sources of funding.

The research capacity trap

Looking at this enabling environment is also necessary to help developing countries get out of the “research capacity trap”. A research capacity trap is a situation in which capacity building alone cannot foster the emergence of consistent and robust local research, especially when faced with the environmental factors impeding research. It is critical to look at reforming the research environment, infrastructure and institutions before any difference can be made.

In most countries the research environment is also a learning environment. Studying the research environment can yield concrete progress in understanding research capacity building. It is useful for faculty staff but also for research managers, international donors and policymakers to understand the way researchers work and the challenges they face in their activities.

A global method

Yet, there is currently no method to assess or measure the level of quality of a country’s research environment. Such a tool would highlight explicit areas with room for improvement for the research system, and create incentives to discuss and reform the higher education and research policy. GDN has started the program “Doing Research” with the aim of investigating the research environment in developing countries, defining it and proposing a multidimensional assessment tool to benchmark research systems and provide robust information to stakeholders on the strengths and weaknesses of their research environment [1] .

In a two-year study working with 29 researchers in 7 teams, covering 11 developing countries around the world, GDN and its partners are working towards three objectives:

• Assessing key elements of the research environment in the 11 pilot countries as the first step to understanding contextualised policies and developing qualitative and quantitative measures of this environment.
• Secondly, engaging in a dialogue with the academic community, policymakers and civil society in these countries to expose the important shortcomings and barriers to research that had been identified.
• Finally, consolidating this information to build a framework that will enable GDN to document the research environment and the current state of research capacities in developing countries around the world.

Researchers’ insights

The researchers from the GDN project who have been studying their research environment have many interesting insights. This blog is the first of a series, supported by Research to Action, which will capture these insights and focus on how we should address gaps in the research environment. For instance, in  Peru, the social science research agenda is set by the state and lacks the independency to ask critical questions and develop a strong quality of knowledge. In Cambodia, the transition environment following the Khmer Rouge regime marked a gap between policy makers and social science researchers. The institutional crisis is also found in Niger, where the stagnation of social science research was partly due to the decline of the State following structural adjustment programs; however, this is somewhat compensated by donors and consultancies in a new form of competition. In South Africa, social sciences are present in institutions but researchers lack the skills and the networks to address societal issues and pursue the available funding.

GDN will conduct a synthesis of these stories and seek to build an overarching framework, respectful of local considerations, to assess and measure the research environment in a systematic way. In the meantime, we invite you to discover more via this blog space.

[1] www.gdn.int/dr

This blog is part of the GDN Doing Research series which brings together insights from the researchers across the project.

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• Making knowledge systems more equitable: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic
• Humanitarian Advisors: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office- Bangladesh
• Strengthening and measuring M&E capacity in Africa
• Latest Newsletter from APHRC – implementation of 2022–2026 Strategic Plan
• How can we achieve locally led practice in international development?

This Week's Most Read

• What do we mean by ‘impact’?
• How to write actionable policy recommendations
• 12ft Ladder: Making research accessible
• Gap analysis for literature reviews and advancing useful knowledge
• How to develop input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators 
• Outcome Mapping: A Basic Introduction
• Problems encountered Mapping Stakeholders…. and some suggested solutions
• Policymaker, policy maker, or policy-maker?
• AEN Evidence 23 – Online Access Registration now open!
• Key questions to ask when putting together a Theory of Change for Research Uptake (Part 1 of 2)

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

Research environment

ORI  Introduction  to RCR: Chapter 7. Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities

University of Michigan Mentoring Guidelines

Email Updates

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

Finally see how to stop getting stuck in a project management tool

20 min. personalized consultation with a project management expert

Smart Note-Taking for Research Paper Writing

How to organize research notes using the Zettelkasten Method when writing academic papers

With plenty of note-taking tips and apps available, online and in paper form, it’s become extremely easy to take note of information, ideas, or thoughts. As simple as it is to write down an idea or jot down a quote, the skill of academic research and writing for a thesis paper is on another level entirely. And keeping a record or an archive of all of the information you need can quickly require a very organized system.

The use of index cards seems old-fashioned considering that note-taking apps (psst! Hypernotes ) offer better functionality and are arguably more user-friendly. However, software is only there to help aid our individual workflow and thinking process. That’s why understanding and learning how to properly research, take notes and write academic papers is still a highly valuable skill.

Let’s Start Writing! But Where to Start…

Writing academic papers is a vital skill most students need to learn and practice. Academic papers are usually time-intensive pieces of written content that are a requirement throughout school or at University. Whether a topic is assigned or you have to choose your own, there’s little room for variation in how to begin.

Popular and purposeful in analyzing and evaluating the knowledge of the author as well as assessing if the learning objectives were met, research papers serve as information-packed content. Most of us may not end up working jobs in academic professions or be researchers at institutions, where writing research papers is also part of the job, but we often read such papers. 

Despite the fact that most research papers or dissertations aren’t often read in full, journalists, academics, and other professionals regularly use academic papers as a basis for further literary publications or blog articles. The standard of academic papers ensures the validity of the information and gives the content authority. 

There’s no-nonsense in research papers. To make sure to write convincing and correct content, the research stage is extremely important. And, naturally, when doing any kind of research, we take notes.

Why Take Notes?

There are particular standards defined for writing academic papers . In order to meet these standards, a specific amount of background information and researched literature is required. Taking notes helps keep track of read/consumed literary material as well as keeps a file of any information that may be of importance to the topic. 

The aim of writing isn’t merely to advertise fully formed opinions, but also serves the purpose of developing opinions worth sharing in the first place. 

What is Note-Taking?

Note-taking (sometimes written as notetaking or note-taking ) is the practice of recording information from different sources and platforms. For academic writing, note-taking is the process of obtaining and compiling information that answers and supports the research paper’s questions and topic. Notes can be in one of three forms: summary, paraphrase, or direct quotation.

Note-taking is an excellent process useful for anyone to turn individual thoughts and information into organized ideas ready to be communicated through writing. Notes are, however, only as valuable as the context. Since notes are also a byproduct of the information we consume daily, it’s important to categorize information, develop connections, and establish relationships between pieces of information. 

What Type of Notes Can I Take?

• Explanation of complex theories
• Background information on events or persons of interest
• Definitions of terms
• Quotations of significant value
• Illustrations or graphics

Note-Taking 101

Taking notes or doing research for academic papers shouldn’t be that difficult, considering we take notes all the time. Wrong. Note-taking for research papers isn’t the same as quickly noting down an interesting slogan or cool quote from a video, putting it on a sticky note, and slapping it onto your bedroom or office wall.

Note-taking for research papers requires focus and careful deliberation of which information is important to note down, keep on file, or use and reference in your own writing. Depending on the topic and requirements of your research paper from your University or institution, your notes might include explanations of complex theories, definitions, quotations, and graphics. 

Stages of Research Paper Writing

1. Preparation Stage

Before you start, it’s recommended to draft a plan or an outline of how you wish to begin preparing to write your research paper. Make note of the topic you will be writing on, as well as the stylistic and literary requirements for your paper.

2. Research Stage

In the research stage, finding good and useful literary material for background knowledge is vital. To find particular publications on a topic, you can use Google Scholar or access literary databases and institutions made available to you through your school, university, or institution. 

Make sure to write down the source location of the literary material you find. Always include the reference title, author, page number, and source destination. This saves you time when formatting your paper in the later stages and helps keep the information you collect organized and referenceable.

In the worst-case scenario, you’ll have to do a backward search to find the source of a quote you wrote down without reference to the original literary material. 

3. Writing Stage

When writing, an outline or paper structure is helpful to visually break up the piece into sections. Once you have defined the sections, you can begin writing and referencing the information you have collected in the research stage.

Clearly mark which text pieces and information where you relied on background knowledge, which texts are directly sourced, and which information you summarized or have written in your own words. This is where your paper starts to take shape.  

4. Draft Stage

After organizing all of your collected notes and starting to write your paper, you are already in the draft stage. In the draft stage, the background information collected and the text written in your own words come together. Every piece of information is structured by the subtopics and sections you defined in the previous stages. 

5. Final Stage

Success! Well… almost! In the final stage, you look over your whole paper and check for consistency and any irrelevancies. Read through the entire paper for clarity, grammatical errors , and peace of mind that you have included everything important. 

Make sure you use the correct formatting and referencing method requested by your University or institution for research papers. Don’t forget to save it and then send the paper on its way.

Best Practice Note-Taking Tips

• Find relevant and authoritative literary material through the search bar of literary databases and institutions.
• Practice citation repeatedly! Always keep a record of the reference book title, author, page number, and source location. At best, format the citation in the necessary format from the beginning. 
• Organize your notes according to topic or reference to easily find the information again when in the writing stage. Work invested in the early stages eases the writing and editing process of the later stages.
• Summarize research notes and write in your own words as much as possible. Cite direct quotes and clearly mark copied text in your notes to avoid plagiarism.  

Take Smart Notes

Taking smart notes isn’t as difficult as it seems. It’s simply a matter of principle, defined structure, and consistency. Whether you opt for a paper-based system or use a digital tool to write and organize your notes depends solely on your individual personality, needs, and workflow.

With various productivity apps promoting diverse techniques, a good note-taking system to take smart notes is the Zettelkasten Method . Invented by Niklas Luhmann, a german sociologist and researcher, the Zettelkasten Method is known as the smart note-taking method that popularized personalized knowledge management. 

As a strategic process for thinking and writing, the Zettelkasten Method helps you organize your knowledge while working, studying, or researching. Directly translated as a ‘note box’, Zettelkasten is simply a framework to help organize your ideas, thoughts, and information by relating pieces of knowledge and connecting pieces of information to each other.

Hypernotes is a note-taking app that can be used as a software-based Zettelkasten, with integrated features to make smart note-taking so much easier, such as auto-connecting related notes, and syncing to multiple devices. In each notebook, you can create an archive of your thoughts, ideas, and information. 

Using the tag system to connect like-minded ideas and information to one another and letting Hypernotes do its thing with bi-directional linking, you’ll soon create a web of knowledge about anything you’ve ever taken note of. This feature is extremely helpful to navigate through the enormous amounts of information you’ve written down. Another benefit is that it assists you in categorizing and making connections between your ideas, thoughts, and saved information in a single notebook. Navigate through your notes, ideas, and knowledge easily.

Ready, Set, Go!

Writing academic papers is no simple task. Depending on the requirements, resources available, and your personal research and writing style, techniques, apps, or practice help keep you organized and increase your productivity. 

Whether you use a particular note-taking app like Hypernotes for your research paper writing or opt for a paper-based system, make sure you follow a particular structure. Repeat the steps that help you find the information you need quicker and allow you to reproduce or create knowledge naturally.

Images from NeONBRAND , hana_k and Surface via Unsplash 

A well-written piece is made up of authoritative sources and uses the art of connecting ideas, thoughts, and information together. Good luck to all students and professionals working on research paper writing! We hope these tips help you in organizing the information and aid your workflow in your writing process.

Cheers, Jessica and the Zenkit Team

FREE 20 MIN. CONSULTATION WITH A PROJECT MANAGEMENT EXPERT

Wanna see how to simplify your workflow with Zenkit in less than a day?

• digital note app
• how to smart notes
• how to take notes
• hypernotes note app
• hypernotes take notes
• note archive software
• note taking app for students
• note taking tips
• note-taking
• note-taking app
• organize research paper
• reading notes
• research note taking
• research notes
• research paper writing
• smart notes
• taking notes zettelkasten method
• thesis writing
• writing a research paper
• writing a thesis paper
• zettelkasten method

More from Karen Bradford

10 Ways to Remember What You Study

More from Kelly Moser

How Hot Desking Elevates the Office Environment in 2024

More from Chris Harley

8 Productivity Tools for Successful Content Marketing

2 thoughts on “ Smart Note-Taking for Research Paper Writing ”

Thanks for sending really an exquisite text.

Great article thank you for sharing!

Leave a Reply 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.

Zenkit Comment Policy

At Zenkit, we strive to post helpful, informative, and timely content. We want you to feel welcome to comment with your own thoughts, feedback, and critiques, however we do not welcome inappropriate or rude comments. We reserve the right to delete comments or ban users from commenting as needed to keep our comments section relevant and respectful.

What we encourage:

• Smart, informed, and helpful comments that contribute to the topic. Funny commentary is also thoroughly encouraged.
• Constructive criticism, either of the article itself or the ideas contained in it.
• Found technical issues with the site? Send an email to [email protected] and specify the issue and what kind of device, operating system, and OS version you are using.
• Noticed spam or inappropriate behaviour that we haven’t yet sorted out? Flag the comment or report the offending post to [email protected] .

What we’d rather you avoid:

Rude or inappropriate comments.

We welcome heated discourse, and we’re aware that some topics cover things people feel passionately about. We encourage you to voice your opinions, however in order for discussions to remain constructive, we ask that you remember to criticize ideas, not people.

Please avoid:

• name-calling
• ad hominem attacks
• responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
• knee-jerk contradiction

Comments that we find to be hateful, inflammatory, threatening, or harassing may be removed. This includes racist, gendered, ableist, ageist, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and language of any sort. If you don’t have something nice to say about another user, don't say it. Treat others the way you’d like to be treated.

Trolling or generally unkind behaviour

If you’re just here to wreak havoc and have some fun, and you’re not contributing meaningfully to the discussions, we will take actions to remove you from the conversation. Please also avoid flagging or downvoting other users’ comments just because you disagree with them.

Every interpretation of spamming is prohibited. This means no unauthorized promotion of your own brand, product, or blog, unauthorized advertisements, links to any kind of online gambling, malicious sites, or otherwise inappropriate material.

Comments that are irrelevant or that show you haven’t read the article

We know that some comments can veer into different topics at times, but remain related to the original topic. Be polite, and please avoid promoting off-topic commentary. Ditto avoid complaining we failed to mention certain topics when they were clearly covered in the piece. Make sure you read through the whole piece before saying your piece!

Breaches of privacy

This should really go without saying, but please do not post personal information that may be used by others for malicious purposes. Please also do not impersonate authors of this blog, or other commenters (that’s just weird).

Animal Studies

Written by Mike Allende

April 19, 2024

Assistant Professor of Film Studies receives grant to fund research and writing about animals’ evolution—in light of environmental factors and mass extinction—as documented on film.

Benjamin Schultz-Figueroa, PhD, is setting a bit of a high bar. On his first proposal to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), he became the first Seattle University faculty member in 20 years to be awarded an NEH grant.

An Assistant Professor of Film Studies, Schultz-Figueroa received a $6,000 grant for his written proposal titled, “Beastly Futures: Multispecies Documentary in the Time of Mass Extinction.” The funding will allow him to complete research and writing of a book exploring the ways documentary films about animals have evolved, as filmmakers and viewers come to better understand environmental change and the mass extinction of species.

Professor Schultz-Figueroa admits it’s a pretty niche subject and he was a bit surprised—and delighted—to earn the award.

“It feels great,” he says. “It’s a nice validation for work that is a little bit niche, a little bit on the stranger end of things. But all academic work is usually niche in some way and it’s on you to make people realize why it’s important.”

An interest in animals on film started for Schultz-Figueroa when he was young, combining growing up as a vegetarian with an interest in science fiction. In a sense, animals are alien beings figuring out their place in the world and role in society. He went on to work in the field of critical animal studies, looking at the role of animals in society and their important place as academic, historical and political subjects. Film presents a unique way to allow us to think about animals in that way that is particularly engaging.

His first book, The Celluloid Specimen , came out last year and takes more of a historical look at documentaries from the 1930s and ‘40s about animal laboratory experiments. His new book will take a broader, comparative look at how animals are represented in older films and how that has changed over the years as our society has changed.

“The basic premise is that in our current moment when animals are going extinct at an unprecedented rate, the way we look at them is dramatically changing,” Schultz-Figueroa says. “In part that’s because our sense of our own future and fate is pretty wrapped up in them in ways that used to be hard to imagine. We can see that change in new documentaries that are being made.”

Finding time to write is no easy task for a dad with three kids under age 7, so the NEH support will be a big help. He also credits the help he received from Sarah Bricknell, sponsored research officer, and her team in the Seattle University Office of Sponsored Projects.

“There would’ve been no chance of getting this without their help translating the project for the funders,” he says. “I’m so grateful for them and I’m very happy about the result.”

Back to top

Job Postings

Find employment opportunities with legislatures, states and public policy organizations.

Posted May 9, 2024

Pew Charitable Trusts

Principal Associate, Fiscal and Economic Policy, State Fiscal Health

Washington, D.C.

Competitive

Senior Associate, Fiscal and Economic Policy

Anchorage Legislature

Alaska Legislative Ethics Committee Administrator

Anchorage, Ala.

Range: $3,169.50 to $3,753.75 bi-weekly

Posted May 6, 2024

Legislative Council Service

New Mexico Legislative Council Service Director

Santa Fe, N.M.

$114,000 to $221,000 p/year

Washington State Senate

Budget Fellows

Hybrid/Olympia, Wash.

The current salary is $6,615 per month.

Posted May 3, 2024

Maryland General Assembly, Department of Legislative Services

Legislative Assistant, Office of Policy Analysis

Annapolis, Md.

Range: $40,000 - $50,000 commensurate with experience.

Full Time (On-site)

May 31, 2024

Responsibilities

Principal Duties

 We are recruiting for legislative assistants to work on a nonpartisan basis in the Fiscal and Policy Notes and Legislation functional areas.

• A Legislative Assistant provides administrative support to the staff in their respective function.
• Duties involve providing administrative and secretarial support to the Office of Policy Analysis.
• Specific duties include tracking legislation, and editing, formatting, proofreading, and distributing correspondence, reports, and workgroup assignments.

Qualifications

• Two years of general clerical or administrative support experience.
• Proficient in Microsoft Suite.
• Effective communication skills, including strong grammar and customer service skills.
• Ability to set priorities, plan, and organize.
• Ability to perform accurate work in a timely manner and coordinate multiple tasks and projects in a fast-paced environment.
• Ability to work independently, in teams, and sometimes under extreme time pressures.
• Availability for extended work hours, including late night and weekend work, during the 90-day legislative session (January-April). Standard office hours during the legislative interim (May- December).
• Ability to lift things up to 50 pounds.

Work Environment

Employees of the Department of Legislative Services function on a nonpartisan basis and by law may not engage in partisan political activity at any time at the federal, state, or local level. The department offers a diverse and collegial environment for persons motivated to provide nonpartisan support to Maryland’s legislative and policymaking process. NOTE: An exercise assessing basic skills is part of the interview process.

Benefits can be found on the website .

About the Organization

About the Maryland General Assembly .

How to Apply

Email Resume and Cover Letter to [email protected] and include code 05-24. The cover letter should state the reasons for interest in the position, any relevant experience, and availability to begin work.

Contact NCSL

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

• What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
• Is this a press or media inquiry? No Yes
• Admin Email

Submit a Job Announcement

List your legislative, governmental or policy-related job. Fees may apply.

Graduates to Receive Special Recognition at CSUN’s Honors Convocation

Media Contacts :   Javier Rojas, [email protected] or Kaley Block, [email protected]  

Of the approximately 3,500 graduates invited to take part in California State University, Northridge’s Honors Convocation on Saturday, May 11, six individuals will be singled out for special recognition as outstanding graduating students.

This includes Mitul Kalra, this year’s Wolfson Scholar, the top award given to a graduating senior. It is presented each year in memory of CSUN’s first vice president, Leo Wolfson. Not only must the student have an exceptional academic record, but he or she must also have made significant contributions to CSUN or the community through co-curricular and extracurricular activities.

“It’s such an honor being selected as the Wolfson Scholar and is something I never could have imagined,” said Kalra, 21, of Irvine, who will receive her bachelor’s degree in communication studies with a minor in political science in two weeks. “It doesn’t happen without the support of those that pushed me and believed in me these last four years.”

Since she began her studies in fall of 2020, Kalra has been actively involved on campus taking on leadership roles and public service in the community. She currently serves as the Chair of Legislative Affairs for CSUN’s Associated Students — a role where she has worked to increase political and voter engagement on campus — and Vice Chair of Legislative Affairs as member of the Cal State Student Association, representing half a million CSU students to the state legislature.

“I’ve been able to represent half a million students to the state legislature and get really involved in the CSU system, which is something I was really proud of,” said Kalra. “Whether it was advocating for EBT on campus, wage transparency in AS and opposing tuition hikes at the state level, it’s an embodiment of the change I want to see in the world,”

Kalra previously worked as a district intern for US Senator Alex Padilla — gaining familiarity with federal policy and issues — then, as a LEAD California fellow, completing voter engagement projects and, most recently, she joined Indian American Impact, a political action committee where she supports South Asian candidates running for office.

She credits the support of faculty members at CSUN for her success and ability to constantly seek new opportunities. This includes her role as president of CSUN’s Communication Association, a student-run group that worked to provide community, networking opportunities and support professional development.

“Mitul deserves the Wolfson because of her love of CSUN and her unflagging devotion to creating and maintaining community on and off campus,” said CSUN communication studies professor John Kephart, who worked with Kalra as an instructor and advisor. “I have never seen anyone work harder to do more in the time they have, nor have I seen anyone with that commitment that also has her humility, her grace, and her compassion. She is among the top 1% of thousands of undergraduates and graduate students I have worked with over the previous 16 years at CSUN. I can’t wait to see what she does next.”

Following her studies, Kalra will be moving to Sacramento this fall to work in the state Senate as a member of the prestigious Capital Fellows Program. She will be working full-time as a Senate Fellow while also working towards a Graduate Certificate in Applied Policy and Government.

“This is an opportunity like no other to learn more about the inner workings of our state government and grow as a leader,” Kalra said. “I’m definitely really drawn to both leadership and public service roles, so I can’t wait to get started. “

Kalra will be taking part in the Honors Convocation ceremony at 6 p.m. on Saturday, May 11, on the lawn in front of the Delmar T. Oviatt Library, located in the heart of the CSUN campus at 18111 Nordhoff St. in Northridge.

The other students being recognized at Honors Convocation are:

Natalie McDonald , recipient of the 2024 Nathan O. Freedman Memorial Award for Outstanding Graduate Student

While she grew up in Los Angeles, McDonald always saw herself as a global citizen willing to learn and discover history and how the world came to be. Set to graduate with a master’s degree in history, McDonald hopes to pursue a career devoted to historical research and education.

McDonald arrived at CSUN having already published two peer-reviewed articles, while her research work received acclaim, both at her undergraduate institution, Pomona College, and from the wider scholarly community.

For the past two years at CSUN, she had the chance to develop her research interests and strengthen her candidacy for future doctoral studies. This includes the opportunity to pursue public history work as an intern on the LA State Historic Park Relevancy & History Project; as a columnist for the American Historical Association’s newsmagazine; and as a curatorial intern at the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Garden.

She has also served as a member of the CSUN Office of Graduate Studies TA Fellowship Program, a teaching assistant for multiple History courses and as a tutor in the CSUN History Department’s Writing Center.

“I am eager to pursue a career devoted to historical research and education because I firmly believe the stories we tell about the past have the power to inspire contemporary change,” McDonald said.

Notably, in January, McDonald did an extensive interview about her research and was featured on Marketplace, the daily business and economics news show on National Public Radio. Her goal is to pursue a Ph.D. in history, she said.

“Now, more than ever, I believe historians share a responsibility to complicate ascendent nativist narratives, instead turning our attention to the ways transnational movement and cross-cultural interaction have shaped our contemporary world,” McDonald said. “I look forward to dedicating my career to this pressing historical project.”

Outstanding Graduating Senior — Nicole Ayala

As a first-generation Paraguayan American woman from a low-income background, Ayala has overcome societal expectations by earning a degree in cell and molecular biology and biotechnology and hopes to become a family medicine doctor. During her time as an undergraduate student, Ayala has used her experiences to fuel her commitment to developing her campus community and empowering underrepresented populations in healthcare and sciences. 

Ayala’s campus and community involvement includes significant leadership roles within CSUN’s Mentor Collective, the Matadors 4 Wellness Education Program, Big Buddies, University Ambassadors Program, two Greek-letter organizations – TriDelta sorority and the co-ed medical fraternity Phi Delta Epsilon – and off-campus nonprofits like Chicas Mom Inc. and Olive View-UCLA Medical Center. During her time as philanthropy advisor for the University Ambassador’s Program, Ayala coordinated the campus’ Cuddle ‘N’ Read literacy initiative, funding books for underserved schools in the community. Ayala’s experience also includes work as a homecare provider and as a Science, Math, and Related Topics (SMART) Lab student assistant at CSUN, as well as a National Science Foundation Research Experience Undergraduate Fellow at Princeton University and shadow experience in geriatric palliative care and hospice care medicine at Kaiser Permanente.

Earning scholarships and researching opportunities, Ayala has demonstrated a commitment to community service and “to excelling in the face of adversity.” Upon graduating, Ayala is determined to become a skilled physician and an advocate for underprivileged communities within the San Fernando Valley encouraging women to join STEM.

Outstanding Graduating Senior — Seth Almaraz

As a first-generation student, Almaraz plans continue his studies in psychology and eventually earn a doctorate, with the goal of one day becoming a CSU faculty member conducting research and mentoring students from culturally diverse and historically underrepresented groups. Having discovered a passion for statistics during his time at CSUN, Almaraz plans to pursue clinical research – aimed at helping marginalized ethnic and racial communities – in the university master’s graduate program.

While an undergraduate, Almaraz was selected as a BUILD PODER scholar, a training program funded by the National Institutes of Health designed to increase underrepresented students in scientific research. He was awarded the CSUN Presidential Scholarship, established to provide opportunities for intensive research with a faculty member and $10,000 in grant funding for the project. Almaraz has spent more than a year volunteering for a community crisis center near the campus called Strength United, which provides resources to those seeking help who have experienced sexual assault. Almaraz has worked as a teaching assistant in graduate psychology courses, and in two labs, psychology professor Scott Plunkett’s “Adolescent and Adult Adjustment” research lab and psychology professor Jill Razani’s “Neuropsychology Dementia and Multicultural Research” lab, conducting bilingual research.

Almaraz attributes his multiethnic and blended family — which included members from Argentina, Bolivia, El Salvador and the Philippines — to the “strong sense of cultural humility” that ground his goals and future work within academia and within his community.

Outstanding Graduating Senior — Jessica Smith

With a degree in English with an emphasis on creative writing, Smith hopes to become a professor of creative writing and adding to the number of Black faces present in higher education. Smith’s work, inspired by authors like Toni Morrison and Nnedi Okorafor, centers around the feminine subject and meaningful experience of being Black.

Smith’s work in genres such as surrealism and Afro futurism has been published in The Northridge Review, The Sundial, and Kapu Sens: Africana Studies Literary Journal and three of CSUN’s printed magazines. Smith has conducted research on literature and Africana studies and has soon to be published, with Kim Young, as part of the Los Angeles Public Poetry and Prose Project. Smith revived the on campus group the Northridge Creative Writing Circle (NCWC) and is graduating as the NCWC Vice President after holding multiple significant leadership roles. In addition, Smith received the 2023-2024 Priscilla Moyer Scholarship and has been an active member of the Trans Wellness Alliance, the Black Student Union, CSUN’s Sigma Tau Delta English Honors Society and Students for Justice in Palestine. Smith has also worked as a Los Angeles Valley College outreach representative, mentoring and aiding students at Panorama High School in applying for higher education.

Striving to spread the message that “every story matters,” not only does Smith want to express creativity as a writer, but also aims to break barriers, disprove existing stereotypes and give back to university-level writing students who seek meaningful experiences in education.

Outstanding Graduating Senior — Sadie Eldredge

As a transfer student, Eldredge hopes to use her Bachelor of Science in Radiologic Sciences (BSRS) to become a pediatric MRI technologist, a dream she has had since she was young.

At CSUN, Eldredge served as a cabinet member for the Radiologic Sciences Student Association, organizing events and dedicating herself to community service opportunities. Among these events were a food drive via Valley Food Bank; holiday card writing via Operation Gratitude; a holiday event for elementary school children in the San Fernando Valley under the Title 1 No Child Left Behind Act; blankets given for foster children; and a donation drive via the My Stuff Bags Foundation in which everyone in the Department of Health Sciences were invited to participate. Dedicating herself to the CSUN and surrounding community, Eldredge has volunteered time at high schools to discuss the importance of radiologic sciences and offered guidance regarding acceptance into the program. Additionally, Eldredge has committed time and energy toward aiding the radiological sciences department in planning events and serves as the BSRS Alumni Association Student Liaison.

Serving as valedictorian after obtaining two associate degrees before her time at CSUN, Eldredge is “humbled by the challenges that allowed” her to achieve current goals and looks forward to her career as a radiologic technologist.

Media Contact: [email protected] - (818) 677-2497

CSUN Students Present Award-Winning Research

Related posts, social media maven takes top prize at bull ring, a ‘nurturing environment for students to thrive’ will help csun students soar, crunch time and more: resources to get you through finals, write a comment cancel reply.

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