chapter 2 research includes

• Contact sales (+234) 08132546417
• Have a questions? [email protected]
• Latest Projects

Project Materials

How to write a good chapter two: literature review.

Click Here to Download Now.

Do You Have New or Fresh Topic? Send Us Your Topic

How to write chapter two of a research pape r.

As is known, within a research paper, there are several types of research and methodologies. One of the most common types used by students is the literature review. In this article, we will be dealing how to write the literature review (Chapter Two) of your research paper.

Although when writing a project, literature review (Chapter Two) seems more straightforward than carrying out experiments or field research, the literature review involves a lot of research and a lot of reading. Also, utmost attention is essential when it comes to developing and referencing the content so that nothing is pointed out as plagiarism.

However, unlike other steps in project writing, it is not necessary to perform the separate theoretical reference part in the review. After all, the work itself will be a theoretical reference, filled with relevant information and views of several authors on the same subject over time.

As it technically has fewer steps and does not need to go to the field or build appraisal projects, the research paper literature review is a great choice for those who have the tightest deadline for delivering the work. But make no mistake, the level of seriousness in research and development itself is as difficult as any other step.

To further facilitate your understanding, we have divided this research methodology into some essential steps and will explain how to do each of them clearly and objectively. Want to know more about it? Read on and check it out!

What is the literature review in a research paper?

To develop a project in any discipline, it is necessary, first, to study everything that other authors have already explored on that subject. This step aims to update the subject for the academic community and to have a basis to support new research. Therefore, it must be done before any other process within the research paper. However, in the literature review (Chapter Two), this step of searching for data and previous work is all the work. That is, you will only develop the theoretical framework.

In general, you will need to choose the topic in question and search for more relevant works and authors that worked around that research idea you want to discuss. As the intention is to make history and update the subject, you will be able to use works from different dates, showing how opinions and views have evolved over time.

Suppose the subject of your research paper is the role of monarchies in 21st-century societies, for example. In that case, you must present a history of how this institution came about, its impact on society, and what roles the institution is currently playing in modern societies. In the end, you can make a more personal conclusion about your vision.

If your topic covered contains a lot of content, you will need to select the most important and relevant and highlight them throughout the work. This is because you will need to reference the entire work. This means that the research paper literature review needs to be filled with citations from other authors. Therefore, it will present references in practically every paragraph.

In order not to make your work uninteresting and repetitive, you should quote differently throughout development. Switching between direct and indirect citations and trying to fit as much content and work as possible will enrich your project and demonstrate to the evaluators how deep you have been in the search.

Within the review, the only part that does not need to be referenced is the conclusion. After all, it will be written as your final and personal view of everything you have read and analyzed.

How to write a literature review?

Here are some practical and easy tips for structuring a quality and compliant research paper literature review!

Introduction

As with any work, the introduction should attract your project readers’ attention and help them understand the basis of the subject that will be worked on. When reading the introduction, you need to be clear to whoever is reading about your research and what it wants to show.

Following the example cited on the theme of monarchies’ roles in the 21st-century societies, the introduction needs to clarify what this type of institution is and why research on it is vital for this area. Also, it would help if you also quoted how the work was developed and the purpose of your literary study.

Basically, you will introduce the subject in such a way that the reader – even without knowing anything about the topic – can read the complete work and grasp the approach, understanding what was done and the meaning of it.

Methodology

Describing the methodology of a literature review is simpler than describing the steps of field research or experiment. In this step, you will need to describe how your research was carried out, where the information was searched, and retrieved.

As you will need to gather a lot of content, searches can be done in books, academic articles, academic publications, old monographs, internet articles, among other reliable sources. The important thing is always to be sure with your supervisor or other teachers about the reliability of each content used. After all, as the entire work is a theoretical reference, choosing unreliable base papers can greatly damage your grade and hinder your approval, putting at risk the quality and integrity of your entire research paper.

Results and conclusion

The results must present clearly and objectively everything that has been observed and collected from studies throughout history on the research’s theme. In this step, you should show the comparisons between authors, like what was the view of the subject before and how it is currently, in an updated way.

You will also be able to show the developments within the theme and the progress of research and discoveries, as well as the conclusions on the issue so far. In the end, you will summarize everything you have read and discovered, and present your final view on the topic.

Also, it is important to demonstrate whether your project objectives have been met and how. The conclusion is the crucial point to convince your reader and examiner of the relevance and importance of all the work you have done for your area or branch, society, or the environment. Therefore, you must present everything clearly and concisely, closing your research paper with a flourish.

In all academic work, bibliographic references are essential. In the academic paper literature review, however, these references will be gathered at the end of the work and throughout the texts.

Citations during the development of the subject must be referenced in accordance with the guideline of your institutions and departments. For each type of reference, there is a rule that depends on the number of words or how you will make it.

Also, in the list of bibliographic references, where you will need to put all the content used, the rules change according to your search source. For internet sources, for example, the way of referencing is different than book sources.

A wrong quote throughout the text or a used work that you forget to put in the references can lead to your project being labeled a plagiarism work, which is a crime and can lead to several consequences. Therefore, studying these standards is essential and determinant for the success of your work’s literature review (Chapter Two).

By adequately studying the rules, dedicating yourself, and putting them into practice, not only will it be easy to develop a successful project, but achieving your dream grade will be closer than you think.

Not What You Were Looking For? Send Us Your Topic

INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT

• 1.Your Full name
• 2. Your Active Email Address
• 3. Your Phone Number
• 4. Amount Paid
• 5. Project Topic
• 6. Location you made payment from

» Send the above details to our email; [email protected] or to our support phone number; (+234) 0813 2546 417 . As soon as details are sent and payment is confirmed, your project will be delivered to you within minutes.

Latest Updates

Role of cooperative society in the provision of agro processing equipment, role of federal government in cooperative financing, factors that can influence the establishment of cooperative., 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.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Advertisements

• Hire A Writer
• Plagiarism Research Clinic
• International Students
• Project Categories
• WHY HIRE A PREMIUM RESEARCHER?
• UPGRADE PLAN
• PROFESSIONAL PLAN
• STANDARD PLAN
• MBA MSC STANDARD PLAN
• MBA MSC PROFESSIONAL PLAN

Research Methods

Chapter 2 introduction.

Maybe you have already gained some experience in doing research, for example in your bachelor studies, or as part of your work.

The challenge in conducting academic research at masters level, is that it is multi-faceted.

The types of activities are:

• Finding and reviewing literature on your research topic;
• Designing a research project that will answer your research questions;
• Collecting relevant data from one or more sources;
• Analyzing the data, statistically or otherwise, and
• Writing up and presenting your findings.

Some researchers are strong on some parts but weak on others.

We do not require perfection. But we do require high quality.

Going through all stages of the research project, with the guidance of your supervisor, is a learning process.

The journey is hard at times, but in the end your thesis is considered an academic publication, and we want you to be proud of what you have achieved!

Probably the biggest challenge is, where to begin?

• What will be your topic?
• And once you have selected a topic, what are the questions that you want to answer, and how?

In the first chapter of the book, you will find several views on the nature and scope of business research.

Since a study in business administration derives its relevance from its application to real-life situations, an MBA typically falls in the grey area between applied research and basic research.

The focus of applied research is on finding solutions to problems, and on improving (y)our understanding of existing theories of management.

Applied research that makes use of existing theories, often leads to amendments or refinements of these theories. That is, the applied research feeds back to basic research.

In the early stages of your research, you will feel like you are running around in circles.

You start with an idea for a research topic. Then, after reading literature on the topic, you will revise or refine your idea. And start reading again with a clearer focus ...

A thesis research/project typically consists of two main stages.

The first stage is the research proposal .

Once the research proposal has been approved, you can start with the data collection, analysis and write-up (including conclusions and recommendations).

Stage 1, the research proposal consists of he first three chapters of the commonly used five-chapter structure :

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• An introduction to the topic.
• The research questions that you want to answer (and/or hypotheses that you want to test).
• A note on why the research is of academic and/or professional relevance.
• Chapter 2: Literature
• A review of relevant literature on the topic.
• Chapter 3: Methodology

The methodology is at the core of your research. Here, you define how you are going to do the research. What data will be collected, and how?

Your data should allow you to answer your research questions. In the research proposal, you will also provide answers to the questions when and how much . Is it feasible to conduct the research within the given time-frame (say, 3-6 months for a typical master thesis)? And do you have the resources to collect and analyze the data?

In stage 2 you collect and analyze the data, and write the conclusions.

• Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Findings
• Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

This video gives a nice overview of the elements of writing a thesis.

Chapter 2. Research Design

Getting started.

When I teach undergraduates qualitative research methods, the final product of the course is a “research proposal” that incorporates all they have learned and enlists the knowledge they have learned about qualitative research methods in an original design that addresses a particular research question. I highly recommend you think about designing your own research study as you progress through this textbook. Even if you don’t have a study in mind yet, it can be a helpful exercise as you progress through the course. But how to start? How can one design a research study before they even know what research looks like? This chapter will serve as a brief overview of the research design process to orient you to what will be coming in later chapters. Think of it as a “skeleton” of what you will read in more detail in later chapters. Ideally, you will read this chapter both now (in sequence) and later during your reading of the remainder of the text. Do not worry if you have questions the first time you read this chapter. Many things will become clearer as the text advances and as you gain a deeper understanding of all the components of good qualitative research. This is just a preliminary map to get you on the right road.

Research Design Steps

Before you even get started, you will need to have a broad topic of interest in mind. [1] . In my experience, students can confuse this broad topic with the actual research question, so it is important to clearly distinguish the two. And the place to start is the broad topic. It might be, as was the case with me, working-class college students. But what about working-class college students? What’s it like to be one? Why are there so few compared to others? How do colleges assist (or fail to assist) them? What interested me was something I could barely articulate at first and went something like this: “Why was it so difficult and lonely to be me?” And by extension, “Did others share this experience?”

Once you have a general topic, reflect on why this is important to you. Sometimes we connect with a topic and we don’t really know why. Even if you are not willing to share the real underlying reason you are interested in a topic, it is important that you know the deeper reasons that motivate you. Otherwise, it is quite possible that at some point during the research, you will find yourself turned around facing the wrong direction. I have seen it happen many times. The reason is that the research question is not the same thing as the general topic of interest, and if you don’t know the reasons for your interest, you are likely to design a study answering a research question that is beside the point—to you, at least. And this means you will be much less motivated to carry your research to completion.

Researcher Note

Why do you employ qualitative research methods in your area of study? What are the advantages of qualitative research methods for studying mentorship?

Qualitative research methods are a huge opportunity to increase access, equity, inclusion, and social justice. Qualitative research allows us to engage and examine the uniquenesses/nuances within minoritized and dominant identities and our experiences with these identities. Qualitative research allows us to explore a specific topic, and through that exploration, we can link history to experiences and look for patterns or offer up a unique phenomenon. There’s such beauty in being able to tell a particular story, and qualitative research is a great mode for that! For our work, we examined the relationships we typically use the term mentorship for but didn’t feel that was quite the right word. Qualitative research allowed us to pick apart what we did and how we engaged in our relationships, which then allowed us to more accurately describe what was unique about our mentorship relationships, which we ultimately named liberationships ( McAloney and Long 2021) . Qualitative research gave us the means to explore, process, and name our experiences; what a powerful tool!

How do you come up with ideas for what to study (and how to study it)? Where did you get the idea for studying mentorship?

Coming up with ideas for research, for me, is kind of like Googling a question I have, not finding enough information, and then deciding to dig a little deeper to get the answer. The idea to study mentorship actually came up in conversation with my mentorship triad. We were talking in one of our meetings about our relationship—kind of meta, huh? We discussed how we felt that mentorship was not quite the right term for the relationships we had built. One of us asked what was different about our relationships and mentorship. This all happened when I was taking an ethnography course. During the next session of class, we were discussing auto- and duoethnography, and it hit me—let’s explore our version of mentorship, which we later went on to name liberationships ( McAloney and Long 2021 ). The idea and questions came out of being curious and wanting to find an answer. As I continue to research, I see opportunities in questions I have about my work or during conversations that, in our search for answers, end up exposing gaps in the literature. If I can’t find the answer already out there, I can study it.

—Kim McAloney, PhD, College Student Services Administration Ecampus coordinator and instructor

When you have a better idea of why you are interested in what it is that interests you, you may be surprised to learn that the obvious approaches to the topic are not the only ones. For example, let’s say you think you are interested in preserving coastal wildlife. And as a social scientist, you are interested in policies and practices that affect the long-term viability of coastal wildlife, especially around fishing communities. It would be natural then to consider designing a research study around fishing communities and how they manage their ecosystems. But when you really think about it, you realize that what interests you the most is how people whose livelihoods depend on a particular resource act in ways that deplete that resource. Or, even deeper, you contemplate the puzzle, “How do people justify actions that damage their surroundings?” Now, there are many ways to design a study that gets at that broader question, and not all of them are about fishing communities, although that is certainly one way to go. Maybe you could design an interview-based study that includes and compares loggers, fishers, and desert golfers (those who golf in arid lands that require a great deal of wasteful irrigation). Or design a case study around one particular example where resources were completely used up by a community. Without knowing what it is you are really interested in, what motivates your interest in a surface phenomenon, you are unlikely to come up with the appropriate research design.

These first stages of research design are often the most difficult, but have patience . Taking the time to consider why you are going to go through a lot of trouble to get answers will prevent a lot of wasted energy in the future.

There are distinct reasons for pursuing particular research questions, and it is helpful to distinguish between them.  First, you may be personally motivated.  This is probably the most important and the most often overlooked.   What is it about the social world that sparks your curiosity? What bothers you? What answers do you need in order to keep living? For me, I knew I needed to get a handle on what higher education was for before I kept going at it. I needed to understand why I felt so different from my peers and whether this whole “higher education” thing was “for the likes of me” before I could complete my degree. That is the personal motivation question. Your personal motivation might also be political in nature, in that you want to change the world in a particular way. It’s all right to acknowledge this. In fact, it is better to acknowledge it than to hide it.

There are also academic and professional motivations for a particular study.  If you are an absolute beginner, these may be difficult to find. We’ll talk more about this when we discuss reviewing the literature. Simply put, you are probably not the only person in the world to have thought about this question or issue and those related to it. So how does your interest area fit into what others have studied? Perhaps there is a good study out there of fishing communities, but no one has quite asked the “justification” question. You are motivated to address this to “fill the gap” in our collective knowledge. And maybe you are really not at all sure of what interests you, but you do know that [insert your topic] interests a lot of people, so you would like to work in this area too. You want to be involved in the academic conversation. That is a professional motivation and a very important one to articulate.

Practical and strategic motivations are a third kind. Perhaps you want to encourage people to take better care of the natural resources around them. If this is also part of your motivation, you will want to design your research project in a way that might have an impact on how people behave in the future. There are many ways to do this, one of which is using qualitative research methods rather than quantitative research methods, as the findings of qualitative research are often easier to communicate to a broader audience than the results of quantitative research. You might even be able to engage the community you are studying in the collecting and analyzing of data, something taboo in quantitative research but actively embraced and encouraged by qualitative researchers. But there are other practical reasons, such as getting “done” with your research in a certain amount of time or having access (or no access) to certain information. There is nothing wrong with considering constraints and opportunities when designing your study. Or maybe one of the practical or strategic goals is about learning competence in this area so that you can demonstrate the ability to conduct interviews and focus groups with future employers. Keeping that in mind will help shape your study and prevent you from getting sidetracked using a technique that you are less invested in learning about.

STOP HERE for a moment

I recommend you write a paragraph (at least) explaining your aims and goals. Include a sentence about each of the following: personal/political goals, practical or professional/academic goals, and practical/strategic goals. Think through how all of the goals are related and can be achieved by this particular research study . If they can’t, have a rethink. Perhaps this is not the best way to go about it.

You will also want to be clear about the purpose of your study. “Wait, didn’t we just do this?” you might ask. No! Your goals are not the same as the purpose of the study, although they are related. You can think about purpose lying on a continuum from “ theory ” to “action” (figure 2.1). Sometimes you are doing research to discover new knowledge about the world, while other times you are doing a study because you want to measure an impact or make a difference in the world.

Basic research involves research that is done for the sake of “pure” knowledge—that is, knowledge that, at least at this moment in time, may not have any apparent use or application. Often, and this is very important, knowledge of this kind is later found to be extremely helpful in solving problems. So one way of thinking about basic research is that it is knowledge for which no use is yet known but will probably one day prove to be extremely useful. If you are doing basic research, you do not need to argue its usefulness, as the whole point is that we just don’t know yet what this might be.

Researchers engaged in basic research want to understand how the world operates. They are interested in investigating a phenomenon to get at the nature of reality with regard to that phenomenon. The basic researcher’s purpose is to understand and explain ( Patton 2002:215 ).

Basic research is interested in generating and testing hypotheses about how the world works. Grounded Theory is one approach to qualitative research methods that exemplifies basic research (see chapter 4). Most academic journal articles publish basic research findings. If you are working in academia (e.g., writing your dissertation), the default expectation is that you are conducting basic research.

Applied research in the social sciences is research that addresses human and social problems. Unlike basic research, the researcher has expectations that the research will help contribute to resolving a problem, if only by identifying its contours, history, or context. From my experience, most students have this as their baseline assumption about research. Why do a study if not to make things better? But this is a common mistake. Students and their committee members are often working with default assumptions here—the former thinking about applied research as their purpose, the latter thinking about basic research: “The purpose of applied research is to contribute knowledge that will help people to understand the nature of a problem in order to intervene, thereby allowing human beings to more effectively control their environment. While in basic research the source of questions is the tradition within a scholarly discipline, in applied research the source of questions is in the problems and concerns experienced by people and by policymakers” ( Patton 2002:217 ).

Applied research is less geared toward theory in two ways. First, its questions do not derive from previous literature. For this reason, applied research studies have much more limited literature reviews than those found in basic research (although they make up for this by having much more “background” about the problem). Second, it does not generate theory in the same way as basic research does. The findings of an applied research project may not be generalizable beyond the boundaries of this particular problem or context. The findings are more limited. They are useful now but may be less useful later. This is why basic research remains the default “gold standard” of academic research.

Evaluation research is research that is designed to evaluate or test the effectiveness of specific solutions and programs addressing specific social problems. We already know the problems, and someone has already come up with solutions. There might be a program, say, for first-generation college students on your campus. Does this program work? Are first-generation students who participate in the program more likely to graduate than those who do not? These are the types of questions addressed by evaluation research. There are two types of research within this broader frame; however, one more action-oriented than the next. In summative evaluation , an overall judgment about the effectiveness of a program or policy is made. Should we continue our first-gen program? Is it a good model for other campuses? Because the purpose of such summative evaluation is to measure success and to determine whether this success is scalable (capable of being generalized beyond the specific case), quantitative data is more often used than qualitative data. In our example, we might have “outcomes” data for thousands of students, and we might run various tests to determine if the better outcomes of those in the program are statistically significant so that we can generalize the findings and recommend similar programs elsewhere. Qualitative data in the form of focus groups or interviews can then be used for illustrative purposes, providing more depth to the quantitative analyses. In contrast, formative evaluation attempts to improve a program or policy (to help “form” or shape its effectiveness). Formative evaluations rely more heavily on qualitative data—case studies, interviews, focus groups. The findings are meant not to generalize beyond the particular but to improve this program. If you are a student seeking to improve your qualitative research skills and you do not care about generating basic research, formative evaluation studies might be an attractive option for you to pursue, as there are always local programs that need evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Again, be very clear about your purpose when talking through your research proposal with your committee.

Action research takes a further step beyond evaluation, even formative evaluation, to being part of the solution itself. This is about as far from basic research as one could get and definitely falls beyond the scope of “science,” as conventionally defined. The distinction between action and research is blurry, the research methods are often in constant flux, and the only “findings” are specific to the problem or case at hand and often are findings about the process of intervention itself. Rather than evaluate a program as a whole, action research often seeks to change and improve some particular aspect that may not be working—maybe there is not enough diversity in an organization or maybe women’s voices are muted during meetings and the organization wonders why and would like to change this. In a further step, participatory action research , those women would become part of the research team, attempting to amplify their voices in the organization through participation in the action research. As action research employs methods that involve people in the process, focus groups are quite common.

If you are working on a thesis or dissertation, chances are your committee will expect you to be contributing to fundamental knowledge and theory ( basic research ). If your interests lie more toward the action end of the continuum, however, it is helpful to talk to your committee about this before you get started. Knowing your purpose in advance will help avoid misunderstandings during the later stages of the research process!

The Research Question

Once you have written your paragraph and clarified your purpose and truly know that this study is the best study for you to be doing right now , you are ready to write and refine your actual research question. Know that research questions are often moving targets in qualitative research, that they can be refined up to the very end of data collection and analysis. But you do have to have a working research question at all stages. This is your “anchor” when you get lost in the data. What are you addressing? What are you looking at and why? Your research question guides you through the thicket. It is common to have a whole host of questions about a phenomenon or case, both at the outset and throughout the study, but you should be able to pare it down to no more than two or three sentences when asked. These sentences should both clarify the intent of the research and explain why this is an important question to answer. More on refining your research question can be found in chapter 4.

Chances are, you will have already done some prior reading before coming up with your interest and your questions, but you may not have conducted a systematic literature review. This is the next crucial stage to be completed before venturing further. You don’t want to start collecting data and then realize that someone has already beaten you to the punch. A review of the literature that is already out there will let you know (1) if others have already done the study you are envisioning; (2) if others have done similar studies, which can help you out; and (3) what ideas or concepts are out there that can help you frame your study and make sense of your findings. More on literature reviews can be found in chapter 9.

In addition to reviewing the literature for similar studies to what you are proposing, it can be extremely helpful to find a study that inspires you. This may have absolutely nothing to do with the topic you are interested in but is written so beautifully or organized so interestingly or otherwise speaks to you in such a way that you want to post it somewhere to remind you of what you want to be doing. You might not understand this in the early stages—why would you find a study that has nothing to do with the one you are doing helpful? But trust me, when you are deep into analysis and writing, having an inspirational model in view can help you push through. If you are motivated to do something that might change the world, you probably have read something somewhere that inspired you. Go back to that original inspiration and read it carefully and see how they managed to convey the passion that you so appreciate.

At this stage, you are still just getting started. There are a lot of things to do before setting forth to collect data! You’ll want to consider and choose a research tradition and a set of data-collection techniques that both help you answer your research question and match all your aims and goals. For example, if you really want to help migrant workers speak for themselves, you might draw on feminist theory and participatory action research models. Chapters 3 and 4 will provide you with more information on epistemologies and approaches.

Next, you have to clarify your “units of analysis.” What is the level at which you are focusing your study? Often, the unit in qualitative research methods is individual people, or “human subjects.” But your units of analysis could just as well be organizations (colleges, hospitals) or programs or even whole nations. Think about what it is you want to be saying at the end of your study—are the insights you are hoping to make about people or about organizations or about something else entirely? A unit of analysis can even be a historical period! Every unit of analysis will call for a different kind of data collection and analysis and will produce different kinds of “findings” at the conclusion of your study. [2]

Regardless of what unit of analysis you select, you will probably have to consider the “human subjects” involved in your research. [3] Who are they? What interactions will you have with them—that is, what kind of data will you be collecting? Before answering these questions, define your population of interest and your research setting. Use your research question to help guide you.

Let’s use an example from a real study. In Geographies of Campus Inequality , Benson and Lee ( 2020 ) list three related research questions: “(1) What are the different ways that first-generation students organize their social, extracurricular, and academic activities at selective and highly selective colleges? (2) how do first-generation students sort themselves and get sorted into these different types of campus lives; and (3) how do these different patterns of campus engagement prepare first-generation students for their post-college lives?” (3).

Note that we are jumping into this a bit late, after Benson and Lee have described previous studies (the literature review) and what is known about first-generation college students and what is not known. They want to know about differences within this group, and they are interested in ones attending certain kinds of colleges because those colleges will be sites where academic and extracurricular pressures compete. That is the context for their three related research questions. What is the population of interest here? First-generation college students . What is the research setting? Selective and highly selective colleges . But a host of questions remain. Which students in the real world, which colleges? What about gender, race, and other identity markers? Will the students be asked questions? Are the students still in college, or will they be asked about what college was like for them? Will they be observed? Will they be shadowed? Will they be surveyed? Will they be asked to keep diaries of their time in college? How many students? How many colleges? For how long will they be observed?

Recommendation

Take a moment and write down suggestions for Benson and Lee before continuing on to what they actually did.

Have you written down your own suggestions? Good. Now let’s compare those with what they actually did. Benson and Lee drew on two sources of data: in-depth interviews with sixty-four first-generation students and survey data from a preexisting national survey of students at twenty-eight selective colleges. Let’s ignore the survey for our purposes here and focus on those interviews. The interviews were conducted between 2014 and 2016 at a single selective college, “Hilltop” (a pseudonym ). They employed a “purposive” sampling strategy to ensure an equal number of male-identifying and female-identifying students as well as equal numbers of White, Black, and Latinx students. Each student was interviewed once. Hilltop is a selective liberal arts college in the northeast that enrolls about three thousand students.

How did your suggestions match up to those actually used by the researchers in this study? It is possible your suggestions were too ambitious? Beginning qualitative researchers can often make that mistake. You want a research design that is both effective (it matches your question and goals) and doable. You will never be able to collect data from your entire population of interest (unless your research question is really so narrow to be relevant to very few people!), so you will need to come up with a good sample. Define the criteria for this sample, as Benson and Lee did when deciding to interview an equal number of students by gender and race categories. Define the criteria for your sample setting too. Hilltop is typical for selective colleges. That was a research choice made by Benson and Lee. For more on sampling and sampling choices, see chapter 5.

Benson and Lee chose to employ interviews. If you also would like to include interviews, you have to think about what will be asked in them. Most interview-based research involves an interview guide, a set of questions or question areas that will be asked of each participant. The research question helps you create a relevant interview guide. You want to ask questions whose answers will provide insight into your research question. Again, your research question is the anchor you will continually come back to as you plan for and conduct your study. It may be that once you begin interviewing, you find that people are telling you something totally unexpected, and this makes you rethink your research question. That is fine. Then you have a new anchor. But you always have an anchor. More on interviewing can be found in chapter 11.

Let’s imagine Benson and Lee also observed college students as they went about doing the things college students do, both in the classroom and in the clubs and social activities in which they participate. They would have needed a plan for this. Would they sit in on classes? Which ones and how many? Would they attend club meetings and sports events? Which ones and how many? Would they participate themselves? How would they record their observations? More on observation techniques can be found in both chapters 13 and 14.

At this point, the design is almost complete. You know why you are doing this study, you have a clear research question to guide you, you have identified your population of interest and research setting, and you have a reasonable sample of each. You also have put together a plan for data collection, which might include drafting an interview guide or making plans for observations. And so you know exactly what you will be doing for the next several months (or years!). To put the project into action, there are a few more things necessary before actually going into the field.

First, you will need to make sure you have any necessary supplies, including recording technology. These days, many researchers use their phones to record interviews. Second, you will need to draft a few documents for your participants. These include informed consent forms and recruiting materials, such as posters or email texts, that explain what this study is in clear language. Third, you will draft a research protocol to submit to your institutional review board (IRB) ; this research protocol will include the interview guide (if you are using one), the consent form template, and all examples of recruiting material. Depending on your institution and the details of your study design, it may take weeks or even, in some unfortunate cases, months before you secure IRB approval. Make sure you plan on this time in your project timeline. While you wait, you can continue to review the literature and possibly begin drafting a section on the literature review for your eventual presentation/publication. More on IRB procedures can be found in chapter 8 and more general ethical considerations in chapter 7.

Once you have approval, you can begin!

Research Design Checklist

Before data collection begins, do the following:

• Write a paragraph explaining your aims and goals (personal/political, practical/strategic, professional/academic).
• Define your research question; write two to three sentences that clarify the intent of the research and why this is an important question to answer.
• Review the literature for similar studies that address your research question or similar research questions; think laterally about some literature that might be helpful or illuminating but is not exactly about the same topic.
• Find a written study that inspires you—it may or may not be on the research question you have chosen.
• Consider and choose a research tradition and set of data-collection techniques that (1) help answer your research question and (2) match your aims and goals.
• Define your population of interest and your research setting.
• Define the criteria for your sample (How many? Why these? How will you find them, gain access, and acquire consent?).
• If you are conducting interviews, draft an interview guide.
•  If you are making observations, create a plan for observations (sites, times, recording, access).
• Acquire any necessary technology (recording devices/software).
• Draft consent forms that clearly identify the research focus and selection process.
• Create recruiting materials (posters, email, texts).
• Apply for IRB approval (proposal plus consent form plus recruiting materials).
• Block out time for collecting data.
• At the end of the chapter, you will find a " Research Design Checklist " that summarizes the main recommendations made here ↵
• For example, if your focus is society and culture , you might collect data through observation or a case study. If your focus is individual lived experience , you are probably going to be interviewing some people. And if your focus is language and communication , you will probably be analyzing text (written or visual). ( Marshall and Rossman 2016:16 ). ↵
• You may not have any "live" human subjects. There are qualitative research methods that do not require interactions with live human beings - see chapter 16 , "Archival and Historical Sources." But for the most part, you are probably reading this textbook because you are interested in doing research with people. The rest of the chapter will assume this is the case. ↵

One of the primary methodological traditions of inquiry in qualitative research, ethnography is the study of a group or group culture, largely through observational fieldwork supplemented by interviews. It is a form of fieldwork that may include participant-observation data collection. See chapter 14 for a discussion of deep ethnography. 

A methodological tradition of inquiry and research design that focuses on an individual case (e.g., setting, institution, or sometimes an individual) in order to explore its complexity, history, and interactive parts.  As an approach, it is particularly useful for obtaining a deep appreciation of an issue, event, or phenomenon of interest in its particular context.

The controlling force in research; can be understood as lying on a continuum from basic research (knowledge production) to action research (effecting change).

In its most basic sense, a theory is a story we tell about how the world works that can be tested with empirical evidence.  In qualitative research, we use the term in a variety of ways, many of which are different from how they are used by quantitative researchers.  Although some qualitative research can be described as “testing theory,” it is more common to “build theory” from the data using inductive reasoning , as done in Grounded Theory .  There are so-called “grand theories” that seek to integrate a whole series of findings and stories into an overarching paradigm about how the world works, and much smaller theories or concepts about particular processes and relationships.  Theory can even be used to explain particular methodological perspectives or approaches, as in Institutional Ethnography , which is both a way of doing research and a theory about how the world works.

Research that is interested in generating and testing hypotheses about how the world works.

A methodological tradition of inquiry and approach to analyzing qualitative data in which theories emerge from a rigorous and systematic process of induction.  This approach was pioneered by the sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967).  The elements of theory generated from comparative analysis of data are, first, conceptual categories and their properties and, second, hypotheses or generalized relations among the categories and their properties – “The constant comparing of many groups draws the [researcher’s] attention to their many similarities and differences.  Considering these leads [the researcher] to generate abstract categories and their properties, which, since they emerge from the data, will clearly be important to a theory explaining the kind of behavior under observation.” (36).

An approach to research that is “multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter.  This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.  Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives." ( Denzin and Lincoln 2005:2 ). Contrast with quantitative research .

Research that contributes knowledge that will help people to understand the nature of a problem in order to intervene, thereby allowing human beings to more effectively control their environment.

Research that is designed to evaluate or test the effectiveness of specific solutions and programs addressing specific social problems.  There are two kinds: summative and formative .

Research in which an overall judgment about the effectiveness of a program or policy is made, often for the purpose of generalizing to other cases or programs.  Generally uses qualitative research as a supplement to primary quantitative data analyses.  Contrast formative evaluation research .

Research designed to improve a program or policy (to help “form” or shape its effectiveness); relies heavily on qualitative research methods.  Contrast summative evaluation research

Research carried out at a particular organizational or community site with the intention of affecting change; often involves research subjects as participants of the study.  See also participatory action research .

Research in which both researchers and participants work together to understand a problematic situation and change it for the better.

The level of the focus of analysis (e.g., individual people, organizations, programs, neighborhoods).

The large group of interest to the researcher.  Although it will likely be impossible to design a study that incorporates or reaches all members of the population of interest, this should be clearly defined at the outset of a study so that a reasonable sample of the population can be taken.  For example, if one is studying working-class college students, the sample may include twenty such students attending a particular college, while the population is “working-class college students.”  In quantitative research, clearly defining the general population of interest is a necessary step in generalizing results from a sample.  In qualitative research, defining the population is conceptually important for clarity.

A fictional name assigned to give anonymity to a person, group, or place.  Pseudonyms are important ways of protecting the identity of research participants while still providing a “human element” in the presentation of qualitative data.  There are ethical considerations to be made in selecting pseudonyms; some researchers allow research participants to choose their own.

A requirement for research involving human participants; the documentation of informed consent.  In some cases, oral consent or assent may be sufficient, but the default standard is a single-page easy-to-understand form that both the researcher and the participant sign and date.   Under federal guidelines, all researchers "shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative.  No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's rights or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence" (21 CFR 50.20).  Your IRB office will be able to provide a template for use in your study .

An administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated. The IRB is charged with the responsibility of reviewing all research involving human participants. The IRB is concerned with protecting the welfare, rights, and privacy of human subjects. The IRB has the authority to approve, disapprove, monitor, and require modifications in all research activities that fall within its jurisdiction as specified by both the federal regulations and institutional policy.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Welcome to Chapter 2

How to Critically Analyze Sources

Learning about synthesis analysis, chapter 2 webinars.

• Student Experience Feedback Buttons
• Library Guide: Research Process This link opens in a new window
• ASC Guide: Outlining and Annotating This link opens in a new window
• Library Guide: Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Library Guide: RefWorks This link opens in a new window
• Library Guide: Copyright Information This link opens in a new window
• Library Research Consultations This link opens in a new window

Jump to DSE Guide

Need help ask us.

• Research Process An introduction to the research process.
• Determining Information Needs A Review Scholarly Journals and Other Information Sources.
• Evaluating Information Sources This page explains how to evaluate the sources of information you locate in your searches.
• Video: Doctoral Level Critique in the Literature Review This video provides doctoral candidates an overview of the importance of doctoral-level critique in the Literature Review in Chapter 2 of their dissertation.

What D oes Synthesis and Analysis Mean?

Synthesis: the combination of ideas to

• show commonalities or patterns

Analysis: a detailed examination

• of elements, ideas, or the structure of something
• can be a basis for discussion or interpretation

Synthesis and Analysis: combine and examine ideas to

• show how commonalities, patterns, and elements fit together
• form a unified point for a theory, discussion, or interpretation
• develop an informed evaluation of the idea by presenting several different viewpoints and/or ideas
• Article Spreadsheet Example (Article Organization Matrix) Use this spreadsheet to help you organize your articles as you research your topic.

Was this resource helpful?

• Next: Library Guide: Research Process >>
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2023 11:59 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1007176

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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

2 Chapter 2 (Introducing Research)

Joining a Conversation

Typically, when students are taught about citing sources, it is in the context of the need to avoid plagiarism. While that is a valuable and worthwhile goal in its own right, it shifts the focus past one of the original motives for source citation. The goal of referencing sources was originally to situate thoughts in a conversation and to provide support for ideas. If I learned about ethics from Kant, then I cite Kant so that people would know whose understanding shaped my thinking. More than that, if they liked what I had to say, they could read more from Kant to explore those ideas. Of course, if they disliked what I had to say, I could also refer them to Kant’s arguments and use them to back up my own thinking.

For example, you should not take my word for it that oranges contain Vitamin C. I could not cut up an orange and extract the Vitamin C, and I’m only vaguely aware of its chemical formula. However, you don’t have to. The FDA and the CDC both support this idea, and they can provide the documentation. For that matter, I can also find formal articles that provide more information. One of the purposes of a college education is to introduce students to the larger body of knowledge that exists. For example, a student studying marketing is in no small part trying to gain access to the information that others have learned—over time—about what makes for effective marketing techniques. Chemistry students are not required to derive the periodic table on their own once every four years.

In short, college classes (and college essays) are often about joining a broader conversation on a subject. Learning, in general, is about opening one’s mind to the idea that the person doing the learning is not the beginning nor the end of all knowledge.

Remember that most college-level assignments often exist so that a teacher can evaluate a student’s knowledge. This means that displaying more of that knowledge and explaining more of the reasoning that goes into a claim typically does more to fulfill the goals of an assignment. The difference between an essay and a multiple choice test is that an essay typically gives students more room to demonstrate a thought process in action. It is a way of having students “show their work,” and so essays that jump to the end without that work are setting themselves up for failure.

Learning, Not Listing

Aristotle once claimed “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Many students are familiar with the idea of search . The internet makes it tremendously easy to search for information—and misinformation. It takes a few seconds to find millions of results on almost any topic. However, that is not research. Where, after all, is the re in all of that? The Cambridge Dictionary offers the following definition:

Research (verb): to study a subject in detail, especially in order to discover new information or reach a new understanding.

Nothing about that implies a casual effort to type a couple of words into search engine and assuming that a result on the first screen is probably good enough. Nor does that imply that a weighted or biased search question, like “why is animal testing bad” will get worthwhile results.  Instead, research requires that the researcher searches, learns a little, and then searches again . Additionally, the level of detail matters. Research often involves knowing enough to understand the deeper levels of the subject.

For example, if someone is researching the efficacy of animal testing, they might encounter a claim that mice share a certain percentage of their DNA with human beings. Even this is problematic, because measuring DNA by percentage isn’t as simple as it sounds. However, estimates range from 85% to 97.5%, with the latter number being the one that refers to the active or “working” DNA. Unfortunately, the casual reader still knows nothing of value about using mice for human research. Why? Because the casual reader doesn’t know if the testing being done involves the 97.5% or the 2.5%, or even if the test is one where it can be separated.

To put it bluntly, Abraham Lincoln once had a trip to the theater that started 97.5% the same as his other trips to the theater.

In order for casual readers to make sense of this single factoid, they need to know more about DNA and about the nature of the tests being performed on the animals. They probably need to understand biology at least a little. They certainly need to understand math at a high enough level to understand basic statistics. All of this, of course, assumes that the student has also decided that the source itself is worthy of trust. In other words, an activist website found through a search engine that proclaims “mice are almost identical to humans” or “mice lack 300 million base pairs that humans have”. Neither source is lying. Just neither source helps the reader understand what is being talked about (if the sources themselves even understand).

Before a student can write a decent paper, the student needs to have decent information. Finding that information requires research, not search. Often, student writers (and other rhetors) mistakenly begin with a presupposed position that they then try to force into the confines of their rhetoric.  Argumentation requires an investigation into an issue before any claim is proffered for discussion.  The ‘thesis statement’ comes last; in many ways it is the product of extensive investigation and learning. A student should be equally open to and skeptical of all sources.

Skepticism in Research

Skepticism is not doubting everyone who disagrees with you. True skepticism is doubting all claims equally and requiring every claim to be held to the same burden of proof (not just the claims we disagree with). By far, the biggest misconception novice writers struggle with is the idea that it is okay to use a low-quality source (like a blog, or a news article, or an activist organization) because they got “just facts” from that source.

The assumption seems to be that all presentations of fact are equally presented, or that sources don’t lie. However, even leaving aside that many times people do lie in their own interests, which facts are presented and how they are presented changes immensely. There’s no such thing as “just facts.” The presentation of facts matters, as does how they are gathered. Source evaluation is a fundamental aspect of advanced academic writing.

“Lies” of Omission and Inclusion:  One of the simplest ways to misrepresent information is simply to exclude material that could weaken the stance that is favored by the author. This tactic is frequently called stacking the deck , and it is obviously dishonest. However, there is a related problem known as observational bias , wherein the author might not have a single negative intention whatsoever. Instead, xe simply only pays attention to the evidence that supports xir cause, because it’s what’s relevant to xir.

• Arguments in favor of nuclear energy as a “clean” fuel source frequently leave out the problem of what to do with the spent fuel rods (i.e. radioactive waste). Similarly, arguments against nuclear energy frequently count only dramatic failures of older plants and not the safe operation of numerous modern plants; another version is to highlight the health risks of nuclear energy without providing the context of health risks caused by equivalent fuel sources (e.g. coal or natural gas).
• Those who rely on personal observation in support of the idea that Zoomers are lazy might count only the times they see younger people playing games or relaxing, ignoring the number of times they see people that same age working jobs or—more accurately—the times they don’t see people that age because they are too busy helping around the house or doing homework.

A source that simply lists ideas without providing evidence or justifying how the evidence supports its conclusions is likely not a source that meets the rigor needed for an academic argument. While later chapters will go into the subject in greater detail, these guidelines suggest that in general, news media are not ideal sources. Neither are activist webpages, nor are blogs or government outlets. As later chapters will explore, all of these “sources” are not in fact sources of information. Inevitably, these documents to not create information, they simply report it. Instead, finding the original studies (performed by experts, typically controlled for bias, and reviewed by other experts before being published) is a much better alternative.

Examining Sources Using the Toulmin Model

On most issues, contradictory evidence exists and the researcher must review the options in a way that establishes one piece of evidence as more verifiable, or as otherwise preferable, to the other.  In essence, researchers must be able to compare arguments to one another.

Stephen Toulmin introduced a model of analyzing arguments that broke arguments down into three essential components and three additional factors. His model provides a widely-used and accessible means of both studying and drafting arguments.

The Toulmin model can be complicated with three other components, as well: backing, rebuttals, and qualifiers. Backing represents support of the data (e.g. ‘the thermostat has always been reliable in the past’ or ‘these studies have been replicated dozens of times with many different populations’). Rebuttals, on the other hand, admit limits to the argument (e.g. ‘unless the thermostat is broken’ or ‘if you care about your long-term health’). Finally, qualifiers indicate how certain someone is about the argument (e.g. ‘it is definitely too cold in here’ is different than ‘it might be too cold in here’; likewise, ‘you might want to stop smoking’ is a lot less forceful than ‘you absolutely should stop smoking’).

At a minimum, an argument (either one made by the student or by a source being evaluated) should have all three of the primary components, even if they are incorporated together. However, most developed arguments (even short answers on tests or simple blog posts) should have all six elements in place. If they are missing, it is up to the reader to go looking for what is missing and to try to figure out why it might have been left out.

Here is an example of an underdeveloped argument that is simply phrased like an absolute claim of fact. It is a poor argument, in that it offers none of the rationale behind what it says—it just insists that it is correct:

“Other countries hate the United States for a reason.”

What other countries? What reason? Is it just one reason, or is it one reason per country?

By contrast, here is an argument that has at least some minimal development:

“In the eyes of many (Qualifier), the United States has earned the hatred of other countries (Claim). The U.S. involvement in Iranian politics alone has earned the country criticism (Data). By helping to overthrow a democratically elected leader in favor of a monarch in 1953, the U.S. acted in a manner that seemed hypocritical and self-interested (Backing). While many countries do act in favor of their own interests (Rebuttal), the U.S. publicly championing democracy while covertly acting against it serves to justify criticism of the country (Warrant).”

Is there room to disagree with this argument? Yes. However, this argument provides its rationale, it offers at least some sort of evidence for its claims, and it provides a place to begin engagement. A researcher who wishes to know more about this argument can go looking into the history of U.S.-Iran relations, for example.

When reviewing a source, or making their own arguments, researchers should consider the following questions. Is there evidence that can be verified and examined by others (in the same spirit as the scientific method)? More specifically:

• What is the claim?
• What data backs up this claim?
• What assumptions do I have to make to consider this evidence to be adequate support?

The various pieces of data which support claims in the Toulmin model are often called into question.  Studies are refuted, statistics countered with rival numbers, and their applicability to the claim in question is often murky.  Evidence—whether offered as matters of fact or as subjective considerations—does not exist in a vacuum.  Data are themselves claims.  If the supporting data are accepted as true, the argument has a generally accepted conclusion.  Such pieces of ‘evidence’ are contentions .

Although Toulmin distinguishes between qualifiers and rebuttal conditions, such a distinction is difficult to maintain in practice.  The important consideration—the one acknowledged by both terms—is that unconditional or absolute claims are difficult to support.  Specific fields have their own ways of hedging their bets.  Science has its error bar (Sagan) and the terminology of probability.  Statistics and polling have a margin of error.  Ethnography has its confrontation of personal bias.  When a rhetor expresses the limitations of a given claim, when the unconditional becomes conditional, claims become more than categorical propositions or thesis statements.  They become arguments.

Example 1:  Here is a minimalistic overview of one claim on the topic of traffic cameras.

• Claim = Traffic cameras increase minor accidents
• Evidence = David Kidwell and Alex Richards of The Chicago Tribune performed a study that was later cited by ABC News.
• Assumptions = This study was conducted honestly and reasonably represents the reality of accidents around these cameras (i.e. I can trust the agenda and the methods of the Chicago Tribune staff).

Example 2 : And here is a second claim on the same subject.

• Claim = The types of accidents by traffic cameras tend to be less severe
• Evidence = The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined national trends and compared medical reports, police reports, and various bills, posting the results on their website.
• Assumptions = If the IIHS has a bias, it would be toward fewer accidents, or at least less severe accidents (because this means they have to pay less money out).

As an Essay Fragment : According to some, traffic cameras actually increase accidents. A study conducted by the Chicago Tribune found that rear-end collisions increased when traffic cameras were installed, meaning that they make things worse, not better (Kidwell and Richards). However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety points out that while there are sometimes increases in minor collisions, the number of crashes resulting in injuries actually decreases.

• “According to…not better (Kidwell and Richards).” This uses a parenthetical source citation to provide a “link” to the evidence and to invite readers to examine both the data and the warrants.
• “However, the…decreases.” This uses a signal statement to introduce the source of the evidence first, often because the source has so much credibility the author is hoping to impress the reader.

Note that this is not a particularly powerful fragment–it is simply the  minimum level of rigor that a student should offer (or look for) in an academic essay or in an academic source.

Academic arguments typically make concessions.  These concessions help define the scope of the argument and the range of the inquiry.  In Section 1, I mentioned a relatively straightforward value claim: “Plan X is bad.”  Argumentation engages such value claims and defines their scope and limits.  Who is plan X bad for?  By what standards?  Why then is anyone in favor of plan X?  A more practical approach could be “If you favor Y, then Plan X is bad.”  This is a concession, of sorts—Plan X is only bad if you favor Y.  The argument admits that if you do not, then Plan X might not be all that bad, after all.

Such a concession, worded in such a way, has added merit.  It functions as what Aristotle would have called an artistic proof, although maybe not an enthymeme.  It establishes a bond between the rhetor and the audience through the shared favoring of Y; it nurtures consubtantiality—the basis of what Burke calls identification.  Clearly, concessions can be made in a way that both prevents some counterarguments from applying and still furthers a rhetorical point.

Such phrasing is practical, and only truly cynical interrogators would consider it sinister.  An inversion of this approach is possible.  “Unless you favor Y, Plan X is bad.”  So long as Y is sufficiently negative in the minds of the audience, the rhetor loses no actual impact here.  Here, connecting Y to X might require substantiation on the part of the rhetor, because the concession has become, itself, a justification of why X is bad (it is related to or involves Y).  The additional rhetorical power—gained through positive and negative associations—often compensates for such additional effort.

Research, Evidence, and Written Arguments Copyright © by jsunderb. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

Chapter 2 Synopsis: The Organization of a Research Article

This chapter outlined the organizational structure of a research article, which is commonly referred to as IMRD/C. Each of those sections has specific goals and strategies that writers can use to optimize their ability to communicate research successfully. One way to envision the relationships between each of the IMRD/C sections is with the image of an hourglass.

The hourglass demonstrates the generality of the Introduction and the Discussion/Conclusion sections in contrast to the more specific nature of the middle two sections — Methods and Results. In the next four chapters, you’ll learn about each of those sections, respectively.

Key Takeaways

Each research article will contain distinct sections that tend to be rather consistent across disciplines, but could contain some individual variation within your discipline or even academic journal. The argument in an overall research article moves from being general to specific then back to more general again.

Preparing to Publish Copyright © 2023 by Sarah Huffman; Elena Cotos; and Kimberly Becker is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Research Fundamentals

• First Online: 14 January 2018

Cite this chapter

• Edzard Ernst 3 &
• Kevin Smith 4  

888 Accesses

Research is the gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement or completion of knowledge. By adding to the store of human knowledge, scientific research has great intrinsic value. Research also has substantial practical value, in the guise of beneficial technologies flowing from such knowledge.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Although frequently referred to in the singular, the ‘placebo effect’ in fact comprises several distinct components.

For example, suppose an ancestral human eats a toadstool and a few hours later is violently sick. If this experience makes her to believe that the toadstool caused the vomiting, it will aid her survival by helping her avoid a possible source of poisoning in the future. This pattern-recognition mechanism ought to be error-prone in the direction of making false assumptions about causality: if the toadstool is not actually toxic (and the sickness actually resulted from some other unseen cause), the resultant false knowledge carries some cost (in terms of the erroneous avoidance of a potential food source), but this is unlikely to greatly threaten survival. By contrast, if the cause-effect link fails to be made in the case of a genuinely toxic toadstool, the cost is likely be much higher: if more toadstools are eaten, the effects could be lethal. Thus, the genetic sequences underlying the error-prone cause-and-effect heuristic are transmitted to the following generations through natural selection. It is clear that such pressures have influenced the evolution of the human brain such that we have a strong inbuilt tendency to make error-prone assumptions about causality.

For example, see Nuzzo ( 2014 ), and Schwalbe ( 2016 ).

There is ongoing academic debate on the extent to which the medical literature is corrupted with false findings. For example, a recent survey of major (mainstream) medical journals claimed that the false positive rate is 14%—a high rate but one that is less than the claim of ‘most’ published findings being false (Jager and Leek 2014 ). However, Ioannidis and other academics have repudiated this claim of 14%, pointing to various flaws in the paper in terms of sampling, calculations, and conclusions, and pointing out that it uses only a very small portion of select papers in top journals (Ioannidis 2014 ; Benjamini and Hechtlinger 2014 ).

In the context of observational studies (as opposed to clinical trials), the equivalent term is false discovery rate , in the context of the problem of multiple comparisons.

There is debate amongst statisticians as to whether p  < 0.05 or p  = 0.05 is the better interpretation. The former is used by many papers on medical statistics, however it is arguably less realistic than the latter, which tends to generate higher false positive risk values. An in-depth exposition of this subtle but important distinction is beyond the scope of this book; see Colquhoun ( 2017 ) for more detailed discussion.

It is ethically questionable to conduct such small-scale RCT s, because they are inherently underpowered and thus prone to generating misleading results. Moreover, because effect size and sample size are interrelated, small samples can lead to overestimations of effect sizes. However, in some specific cases the determination of effect size can be aided by data from such trials.

This will only be true if the power calculation has been valid.

This is optimistic because, as discussed elsewhere in this book, the alleged specific effects of acupuncture are supposedly due to completely implausible physiological features and mechanisms, including Qi (‘vital energy’) flowing through meridians (body channels), none of which have been discovered by science and all of which are implausible.

Various ways exist to calculate false positive risk; the values that result vary according to methodology, but all valid approaches yield risks that are substantially greater than the 5% assumed by the common but disastrously wrong assumption that p  = 0.05 equates with a 5% false positive risk. For example, in simplified terms, we can compute the expected false positive risk for p  < 0.05 by: [a] multiplying the sample size by the prior probability, then multiplying the proportion of the sample with a real effect by the power value, to establish the number of true responders; then [b] multiplying the proportion of the sample who are expected to have showed no effect with the threshold p -value (0.05) to establish the expected number of false positives; and finally [c] expressing as a percentage the number of false positives from the overall number of positive results. For the example given above, this computes to 86%. Note that for p  = 0.05, using the methodology used by Colquhoun ( 2017 ), the false positive risk computes to be even higher, at 97%.

An alternative way of expressing this is to say that if you observe p  = 0.05 then, in order to achieve a false positive risk of 5%, you would need a prior probability of 87%—clearly preposterously high (Colquhoun 2017 ).

The numbering is ours, and the wording of #2 had been adapted slightly, to remove reference to ‘business or policy decisions’.

This example is chosen to illustrate an inherently absurd modality, recognisable as such to all reasonable people. Sadly however, proponents of such ‘intercessory therapeutic prayer’ exist; indeed, some of them have even conducted ‘clinical trials’ into this form of CAM (Roberts et al. 2009 ). We shall consider one such real-life case later in the next chapter.

An online statistics tool was used to calculate this sample size (ClinCalc LLC 2017 ).

This was calculated using a z-test; other suitable tests exist, but all of these will approximate to this value.

There is an interesting ethical side question here: should subjects who cannot feasibly be affected in any way whatsoever by a remote experiment (such as intercessory prayer) be required to give consent?

The statistical analysis of such combined data is referred to as ‘meta-analysis’, and some systematic review publications are titled as meta-analyses.

For example, a search of the academic publications database Web of Science (which includes all the major CAM journals) covering 2007–2017 using various relevant search terms ( p -value , reproducibility crisis, p-hacking) led to merely one CAM paper dealing with the issue of problematic statistical interpretation of clinical data (Benbassat 2016 ).

Beecher H (1955) The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc (JAMA) 159(17):1602–1606

Article   Google Scholar  

Benbassat J (2016) Inferences from unexpected findings of scientific research: common misconceptions. Eur J Integr Med 8(3):188–190. doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2015.12.010

Benjamin DJ, Berger J, Johannesson M et al (2017) Redefine statistical significance. PysArXiv preprints. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/mky9j/ . Accessed 14 Aug 2017

Benjamini Y, Hechtlinger Y (2014) Discussion: an estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and applications to top medical journals by Jager and Leek. Biostatistics 15(1):13–16. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt032

ClinCalc LLC (2017) Sample size calculator. ClinCalc.com. http://clincalc.com/stats/samplesize.aspx . Accessed 11 Feb 2017

Colquhoun D (2014) An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. Roy Soc Open Sci 1(3):140216. doi: 10.1098/rsos.140216

Colquhoun D (2017) The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of P values. Roy Soc Open Sci. http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/08/07/144337.full.pdf . Accessed 12 Aug 2017

Ernst E (2006) Prevalence surveys: to be taken with a pinch of salt. Complement Ther Clin Pract 12(4):272–275. doi:S1744-3881(06)00042-9 [pii]

Google Scholar  

Ernst E (2013a) More dismal chiropractic research. Edzard Ernst | MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd. http://edzardernst.com/2013/02/more-dismal-research-of-chiropractic/ . Accessed 15 Jan 2017

Ernst E (2013b) What can be more irresponsible than implying that homeopathy cures cancer? Edzard Ernst | MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd. http://edzardernst.com/2013/09/what-can-be-more-irresponsible-than-implying-that-homeopathy-cures-cancer/ . Accessed 15 Jan 2017

Ernst E (2016a) Acupuncture: the current state of the scientific literature. Edzard Ernst|MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd. http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/acupuncture-the-current-state-of-the-scientific-literature/ . Accessed 15 Jan 2017

Ernst E (2016b) The current state of research into homeopathy. Edzard Ernst | MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd. http://edzardernst.com/2016/08/the-current-state-of-research-into-homeopathy/ . Accessed 15 Jan 2017

Ernst E (2016c) Data fabrication in China is an ‘open secret’. Edzard Ernst | MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd. http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/data-fabrication-in-china-is-an-open-secret/ . Accessed 15 Jan 2017

Ernst E, Pittler M (1997) Alternative therapy bias. Nature 385(6616):480. doi: 10.1038/385480c0

Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC (2010) Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev (1):CD003974. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3

Ioannidis J (2005) Why most published research findings are false. Plos Medicine 2(8):696–701. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Ioannidis J (2014) Discussion: why “an estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature” is false. Biostatistics 15(1):28–36. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036

Jager LR, Leek JT (2014) An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics 15(1):1–12. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt007

McGorry R, Webster B, Snook S et al (2000) The relation between pain intensity, disability, and the episodic nature of chronic and recurrent low back pain. Spine 25(7):834–840. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200004010-00012

Medawar PB (1967) The art of the soluble. Methuen, London

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Plos Med 6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Nuzzo R (2014) Statistical errors. Nature 506(7487):150–152

Pandolfi M, Carreras G (2014) The faulty statistics of complementary alternative medicine (CAM). Eur J Intern Med 25(7):607–609. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2014.05.014

Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S et al (2009) Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD000368. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000368.pub3

Schwalbe M (2016) Statistical challenges in assessing and fostering the reproducibility of scientific results. National Academy of Sciences, USA

Book   Google Scholar  

Tang JL, Zhan SY, Ernst E (1999) Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine. BMJ 319(7203):160–161

Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R et al (1998) Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 19(2):159–166. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00150-5 [pii]

Wasserstein RL, Amer Statistical Assoc (2016) ASA statement on statistical significance and P-values. Am Stat 70(2):131–133

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Edzard Ernst

School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Abertay University, Dundee, UK

Kevin Smith

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Edzard Ernst or Kevin Smith .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Ernst, E., Smith, K. (2018). Research Fundamentals. In: More Harm than Good?. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69941-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69941-7_2

Published : 14 January 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-69940-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-69941-7

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (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

• 25,725 Views

How To Develop Your Research Project Chapter Two Effectively (Literature Review) | ResearchWap Blog

• Posted: Wednesday, 08 April 2020
• By: ResearchWap Admin

How To Develop A Literature Review For A Research Work

Introduction:

A literature review is a survey of academic sources on a particular project topic. It gives an overview of the ebb and flows information, permitting you to distinguish significant hypotheses, strategies, and holes in the current research.

A literature review is to show your reader that you have read, and have a good grasp of, the main published work concerning a particular topic or question in your field.

It is very important to note that your review should not be simply a description of what others have published in the form of a set of summaries but should take the form of a critical discussion, showing insight and an awareness of differing arguments, theories, and approaches. It should be a synthesis and analysis of the relevant published work, linked at all times to your own purpose and rationale.

Conducting a literature review involves collecting, evaluating, and analyzing publications (such as books and journal articles) that relate to your research question. There are five main steps in the process of writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources – it analyzes, synthesizes, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

According to Caulley (1992) of La Trobe University, the literature review should:

• compare and contrast different authors’ views on an issue • group authors who draw similar conclusions • criticize aspects of the methodology • note areas in which authors are in disagreement • highlight exemplary studies • highlight gaps in research • show how your study relates to previous studies • show how your study relates to the literature in general • conclude by summarising what the literature says

THE PURPOSES OF THE REVIEW ARE:

• To define and limit the problem you are working on • To place your study in a historical perspective • To avoid unnecessary duplication • To evaluate promising research methods • To relate your findings to previous knowledge and suggest further research

A good literature review, therefore, is critical of what has been written, identifies areas of controversy, raises questions, and identifies areas that need further research.

STRUCTURE OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

The overall structure of your review will depend largely on your own thesis or research area. What you will need to do is to group together and compare and contrast the varying opinions of different writers on certain topics. What you must not do is just describe what one writer says, and then go on to give a general overview of another writer, and then another, and so on. Your structure should be dictated instead by topic areas, controversial issues or by questions to which there are varying approaches and theories. Within each of these sections, you would then discuss what the different literature argues, remembering to link this to your own purpose.

Linking words are important. If you are grouping together writers with similar opinions, you would use words or phrases such as: Similarly, in addition, also, again

More importantly, if there is disagreement, you need to indicate clearly that you are aware of this by the use of linkers such as: however, on the other hand, conversely, nevertheless

At the end of the review, you should include a summary of what the literature implies, which again links to your hypothesis or main question.

A standard research literature review is expected to follow the format below:

Introduction

• Conceptual framework
• Theoretical framework
• Empirical review
• Knowledge gap (optional)
• Summary of literature

INTRODUCTION: here undergraduate or final year project students are expected to simply spell out in at least seven (7) what this chapter will contain. As we have it above conceptual framework, theoretical framework, empirical review, etc. a good introduction gives the project supervisor kind confidence in his or her project students.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: a good conceptual framework will cover all the research objectives so as to help solve the problem of the research work. This section involves the use of diagrams to explain certain key variables in the research work. The use of diagrams is usually high in MBA/MSC thesis research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: this section is very important in research work. Undergraduate project students, postgraduate research students are expected to search for theories that are related to their research project topic.

For example, consider the project topic on human resource management: work-life balancing and its effect on employee productivity; the theory that is suited for the above research topic is The Segmentation Theory, Spill-Over Theory, Compensation Theory, Resource Drain Theory, and Border Theory. A project student is expected to get the theories that are related to their research work/ topic.

EMPIRICAL REVIEW

The empirical review is simply talking about the various researches done by other researchers concerning your topic or people's research works that are similar to your research work. The names of various researchers must be attached to their findings or statement.

For example, the use of instructional materials in teaching and learning of geography in senior secondary schools has a significant effect on the level of the academic achievement of students (Androameda, 2017)

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE

Here the research or project students are expected to point out their view concerning all that was discussed in each section of the literature review.

WHY WRITE A LITERATURE REVIEW?

When you write a thesis, dissertation, or research paper, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps.

Step 1: Search for relevant literature

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic.

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions.

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Search for literature using keywords and citations

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic and question. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalog
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering, and computer science)

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

What can proofreading do for your paper?

Scribbr editors not only correct grammar and spelling mistakes, but also strengthen your writing by making sure your paper is free of vague language, redundant words, and awkward phrasing.

Step 2: Evaluate and select sources

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences, you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities, you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism. It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free citation generator to quickly create correct and consistent APA citations or MLA format citations.

Step 3: Identify themes, debates, and gaps

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results):  do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes:  what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts, and contradictions:  where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications:  are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps:  What is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

Step 4: Outline your literature review’s structure

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods, you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Step 5: Write your literature review

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction, the main body, and a conclusion. What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Dissertation literature review you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question, and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasize the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”). Stand-alone literature review you are writing a stand-alone paper, give some background on the topic and its importance, discuss the scope of the literature you will review (for example, the time period of your sources), and state your objective. What new insight will you draw from the literature?

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize:  give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret:  don’t just paraphrase other researchers—add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate:  mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs:  use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts

Literature review paragraph example

The example below is taken from the body of a literature review on the relationship between national identity and nature conservation. This paragraph discusses how humanities scholars have approached the concept of wilderness.

Early work in environmental humanities tended to take a sharply critical approach to the wilderness, focusing on the cultural construction of supposedly ‘natural’ landscapes. The rise of climate change awareness in the 1980s had been framed by narratives about “the end of nature” (McKibben 1989), in which a once-pristine wilderness is degraded by humans to the point of disappearance. In response to this popular discourse, environmental historian William Cronon critiqued the concept of pure, pristine nature to be preserved from human influence, arguing that ideas like “wilderness” are themselves products of particular human cultures and histories. In his influential essay ‘The Trouble with Wilderness’ (1995), Cronon traces how the ideal of untouched wilderness, anxiety over its loss, and the political will to preserve it has been central to American national identity, entwined with religious motifs and colonial frontier mythologies. Following Cronon, the racial and class politics of wilderness preservation was a theme taken up by several scholars in the late 1990s and early 2000s, who researched the material effects of conservation politics on indigenous and rural Americans (Catton 1997; Spence 1999; Jacoby 2001). The US National Park system became the dominant paradigm for analyzing relations between conservation, nationhood, and nationalism. However, this approach has sometimes led to a narrowly US-centric perspective that fails to engage closely with the meanings and materialities of “wilderness” in different contexts. Recent work has begun to challenge this paradigm and argues for more varied approaches to understanding the socio-political relations between nations and nature.

The example combines the thematic and chronological approaches. This section of the literature review focuses on the theme of wilderness, while the paragraph itself is organized chronologically.

In conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

Dissertation literature review if the literature review is part of your thesis or dissertation, show how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research.Stand-alone literature review if you are writing a stand-alone paper, you can discuss the overall implications of the literature or make suggestions for future research based on the gaps you have identified.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting it. Our quick guide to proofreading offers some useful tips and tricks!

Tags: literature review, chapter two

Project Categories

• AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTIC
• ACCOUNTING EDUCATION
• ACTUARIAL SCIENCE
• ADULT EDUCATION
• AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
• AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
• ANIMAL SCIENCE
• ARCHITECTURE
• BANKING AND FINANCE
• BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGY
• BIOCHEMISTRY
• BREWING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
• BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
• BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
• BUSINESS EDUCATION

SEE MORE PROJECT CATEGORIES

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved researchwap.com - Free Project Topics, Research Materials, and Educational Resources

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Related Papers

Randel D Estacio

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed instructional material, the learning assessment tool in Physics 1 (Mechanics), and to investigate its effect in teaching the subject. The design of this study is a combination of descriptive and experimental designs. A total of thirty three (33) experts and instructors in Physics from selected local colleges and universities in Metro Manila evaluated the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool. In order to determine the effect of the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool in Physics 1 (Mechanics) a one group pretest-posttest was employed and a total of 50 freshmen Industrial Engineering students of the Quezon City Polytechnic University (QCPU) served as the experimental group. Lessons in Physics 1 (Mechanics) were presented according to the outcomes based learning approach and the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool were utilized. An instructional material and learning assessment tool were developed based from the results of validity, reliability, and item analysis of the achievement test in Physics 1 (Mechanics). The acceptability of the proposed instructional material and assessment of learning tool as assessed by the experts and faculty in Physics respondents revealed the following findings: As to Objective. It revealed that the objectives found in the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool in Physics were highly acceptable as a result by its mean of 4.16. As to Content. The content of the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool in Physics was highly acceptable having a mean of 4.42 as assessed by the experts and faculty in Physics. As to Usefulness. The study revealed that the usefulness of the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool in Physics subject was highly acceptable with a mean of 4.45 as assessed by the experts and faculty in the field. As for Clarity. Both expert and faculty agreed that when it comes to clarity, the proposed instructional material and learning assessment tool in Physics were highly acceptable with a mean of 4.43. As to Presentation. The mean response of the expert and faculty in Physics was 4.44 and indicates that the presentation of the lessons in the proposed instructional material and assessment of learning tool was highly acceptable. As to Evaluation. The study found out that the evaluation of the proposed instructional material in a form of concept cartoon was highly accepted by the experts and faculty in Physics as supported by a mean of 4.49. As to Language and Style. Experts and faculty members in the field of Physics assessed the language and style of the proposed instructional-material and assessment of learning tool as very highly acceptable having a mean of 4.46. The study revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in the performance in the post-test of students who were taught with the use of the proposed instructional material and assessment of learning tool as compared to those who did not, p(98)=8.9174, p<.05. When the result of pre-test and post-test of each group was compared, statistically significant difference was found, p(49)=12.9769, p<.05 (control group) and p(49)=22.9071, p<.05 (experimental group). This implies that the proposed instructional material and assessment of learning tool in Physics 1 (Mechanics) greatly affect the performance of students in the class; the result also signifies that students were able to learn the lesson easily if it was presented by means of picture diagrams. The study claims and reaffirms that the findings of other researches that concept cartoon when used as formative assessment can improve the performance and achievement of students in difficult subjects like Physics.

José G. Vargas-hernández

Globalization has become a trigger for international trade due to its role as an integrator of the world economy and social standardization in a technological, cultural and universal knowledge that allows free access to resources with minimal effort context. The study aimed to analyze the Port of Manzanillo from the perspective of theories based on the Industry, the Dynamic Resources and Institutions, all around the Mexican Port System. The study utilized qualitative research method and is based on a literature review of the current status of the port and its global environment.

Prof. Negar Elhamian , Helen Bihag , Dondon Salingay

International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT)

IJERT Journal

https://www.ijert.org/difference-of-pretest-and-post-test-in-philippine-history-of-cas-freshmen-students https://www.ijert.org/research/difference-of-pretest-and-post-test-in-philippine-history-of-cas-freshmen-students-IJERTV5IS040470.pdf This research centers on the difference of pretest and post test in Philippine history of CAS freshmen students. Specifically, it determines the appropriate instructional materials suited to the student's level to maximize learning have to be provided. The study utilized the descriptive method of research. Pretest and Post test were made and it was found out that film viewing in teaching History of the respondents were assessed effective and that the overall mean scores of the students in the pretest and posttest had increased. Results of the study show that the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of the respondent was rejected.

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

Shaik Farid Abdull Wahab , Tuan Hairulnizam Tuan Kamauzaman , Ida Zaini

nomie valencia

Science Insights

Insights Publisher , E. Agatep

The study assessed the level of internet addiction exists among students of AMA Computer Colleges in Region III, Philippines and identified internet addiction management practices as strategies to address the problem, to lessen if not to eliminate, to prevent or cure level of internet addiction that exists. The descriptive analysis method of research was utilized. A total of one thousand five hundred fifteen student-respondents and one hundred fifty-eight administrator-respondents participated in the study. The researcher found out that there is a severe addiction level described as Often. There is a severe dependence on the internet as reflected in the internet addiction mean test scores of the student-respondents. There is a significant relationship between the level of internet addiction and the perceived level of implementation of the internet addiction management practices. There is a significant relationship between the internet addiction test scores and the perceived level of implementation of the internet addiction management practices. Overall findings conclude that there was a significant very strong negative relationship between the level of internet addiction and in-ternet addiction test scores of student-respondents and the perceived level of implementation of internet addiction management practices of administrator-respondents; hence, the negative relationship indicates that as the intensity of the perceived level of implementation increases, the level of internet addiction and internet addiction test scores among student-respondents decreases. This study is expected to provide a worthy contribution to the institution and to international literature on internet addiction; the result can be used in providing solution, actions and remedies to lessen if not to eliminate addiction in Internet usage.■

Maricel Mendoza Fider

finding answers to my querry about how the learners of today in the secondary best describe

ResearchGate.net

DR. DAVID C . BUENO

The course aims to give an understanding of some topical and contemporary issues in educational administration and how such issues have influenced the educational system. You are required to do and submit literature reviews or syntheses (IMRaD format) on the various current issues, trends or problems affecting the educational system in the Philippines.

Jong Azores

This study is aimed at assessing the data gathered from the survey of 102 musicians about their status and condition in working at the bars and restaurants in the city of Olongapo and the Subic Bay Freeport Zone and at identifying their collective aspirations. Based on its findings, the challenge to develop the adjacent localities of Olongapo City and Subic Bay Freeport Zone as a music tourism destination was identified.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Institutional Multidsciplinary Research and Development (IMRaD)

DR. DAVID C . BUENO , Edward San Agustin

Arnolfo Monleon

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Open University

Francisco B Bautista

Jo Dominado

Xenery Madera

Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences

Research and Statistics Center

Laela Montezor

Research Paper

Zoe Vera Acain

IP innovative publication pvt. ltd

IP Innovative Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Historically Digitized

ronaldo pasion

Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology

Zakirul Islam

US-China Education Review A & B

Maine Morales

Lanie Torres

Susan Houge Mackenzie

Ramon Alvarado

caroline tobing , Jimmy Kijai , Francis H , Stenly Pungus , Damrong Satayavaksakul , Evy Indrawati Siregar , yane sinaga , Ika Suhartanti Darmo , Fanny Soewignyo , Mariju Pimentel

Andy N Cubalit , Naely Muchtar , Jittrapat Piankrad , Dararat Khampusaen

YOLI LLORICO

Rainulfo Pagaran

Asian EFL Journal

Romualdo Mabuan

simarjeet kaur

Ritchie Bilasa

Nikolaos Digelidis , Ioannis Syrmpas , Achillios A. Koutelidas

José G. Vargas-hernandez

Nikolaos Digelidis , Ioannis Syrmpas

San Beda College Alabang

Savipra Gorospe, C.Ht., RPm , Renzen Martinez , Chennie Regala

Gilbert Bagsic

Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia

Siti H Stapa , Nor Hasni Mokhtar , Zarina Othman , Azizah Yaacob , Sharifah Zurina

International Journal of Social & Scientific Research

John Mark R . Asio , Ediric D . Gadia

Maribel Malana

Nikolaos Digelidis , D. Pasco

Jeniesel Lopian

International Journal of Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Studies

Edward Jimenez , John Mark R . Asio

Joanah Marie Mercado

Rommel Tabula

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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

References for Chapter 2

• Busetto L, Wick W, Gumbinger C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice. 2020;2;14. doi: 10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z
• Wintersberger D,  Saunders M. Formulating and clarifying the research topic: Insights and a guide for the production management research community. Production 2020;30.
• Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research methods for business students . Prentice Hall: Financial Times; 2003.
• Saunders MN, Lewis P. Great ideas and blind alleys? A review of the literature on starting research. Management Learning 1997;28;283-299.
• Gill J, Johnson P, Clark M. Research Methods for Managers. 4th ed. Sage; 2010.
• Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg 2010;53;278-281.
• Hanson BP. Designing, conducting and reporting clinical research: A step by step approach. Injury 2006;37;583-594.
• Paraskevas A, Saunders MN. Beyond consensus: An alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2012;24(6).
• Lipowski EE. Developing great research questions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2008;65;1667-1670.
• Supino PG.  The research hypothesis: Role and construction. In: Supino PG, Borer JS, eds. Principles of Research Methodology: A Guide for Clinical Investigators. Springer Link; 2012: 31-53.
• Hulley SB. Designing Clinical Research . Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
• Goldschmidt G, Matthews B. Formulating design research questions: A framework. Design Studies. 2022;78;101062. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101062
• Ratan SK, Anand T, Ratan J. Formulation of Research Question – Stepwise Approach. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2019;24;15-20. doi: 10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_76_18
• Fandino W. Formulating a good research question: Pearls and pitfalls. Indian J Anaesth 2019;63;611-616. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_198_19
• Fink A. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . SAGE Publications; 2019.
• Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. Br J Nurs 2008;17, 38-43, doi: 10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059.
• Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth, A. Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2019;36;202-222.
• Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions . John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
• Page MJ,  McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372;n71, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
• Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews   2015;4;183. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7
• Seers K. Qualitative systematic reviews: Their importance for our understanding of research relevant to pain. Br J Pain 2015;9;36-40. doi: 10.1177/2049463714549777.
• Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series—paper 2: Methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J. Clin. Epidemiol . 2018;97;39-48.
• Timmins F, McCabe C. How to conduct an effective literature search. Nursing Standard 2005;20;41-47.
• Thakre SB, Thakre SS, Thakre AD. Electronic biomedical literature search for budding researcher. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7;2033-2037. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2013/6348.3399.

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

An official website of the United States Government

• Kreyòl ayisyen
• Search Toggle search Search Include Historical Content - Any - No Include Historical Content - Any - No Search
• Menu Toggle menu
• INFORMATION FOR…
• Individuals
• Business & Self Employed
• Charities and Nonprofits
• International Taxpayers
• Federal State and Local Governments
• Indian Tribal Governments
• Tax Exempt Bonds
• FILING FOR INDIVIDUALS
• How to File
• When to File
• Where to File
• Update Your Information
• Get Your Tax Record
• Apply for an Employer ID Number (EIN)
• Check Your Amended Return Status
• Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN)
• File Your Taxes for Free
• Bank Account (Direct Pay)
• Payment Plan (Installment Agreement)
• Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS)
• Your Online Account
• Tax Withholding Estimator
• Estimated Taxes
• Where's My Refund
• What to Expect
• Direct Deposit
• Reduced Refunds
• Amend Return

Credits & Deductions

• INFORMATION FOR...
• Businesses & Self-Employed
• Earned Income Credit (EITC)
• Child Tax Credit
• Clean Energy and Vehicle Credits
• Standard Deduction
• Retirement Plans

Forms & Instructions

• POPULAR FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
• Form 1040 Instructions
• Form 4506-T
• POPULAR FOR TAX PROS
• Form 1040-X
• Circular 230

Audit techniques guide: Credit for Increasing Research Activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41* - Qualified research activities

More in file.

• Business tax account
• Small business and self-employed
• Large business
• Corporations
• Partnerships
• Charities and nonprofits
• International taxpayers
• Governmental liaisons
• Federal, state and local governments
• Indian tribal governments
• Tax exempt bonds

Publication date: June 2005

* Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the treasury regulations.

Note: This guide is current through the publication date.  Since changes may have occurred after the publication date that would affect the accuracy of this document, no guarantees are made concerning the technical accuracy after the publication date.

Chapter 4 | Table of contents | Chapter 6

5. Qualified research activities

A. in general.

In order for an activity to qualify for the research credit, the taxpayer must show that it meets all the requirements as described in section 41(d). Under section 41(d), the term "qualified research" means research:

• With respect to which expenditures may be treated as expenses under section 174, (also known as the section 174 test);
• Which is undertaken for the purpose of discovering information which is technological in nature, (also known as the discovering technological information test);
• The application of which is intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved business component of the taxpayer (also known as the business component test); and
• Substantially all of the activities of which constitutes elements of a process of experimentation for a qualified purpose (also known as the process of experimentation test).

To be considered “qualified research”, the taxpayer must be able to establish that the research activity being performed meets ALL four of the above tests. 11 These tests must be applied separately to each business component of the taxpayer.  Activities listed in section 41(d)(4) are not qualified research.  Infra.

(1). The Section 174 test

In order to meet the section 174 test, the expenditure must (1) be incurred in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business, and (2) represent a research and development cost in the experimental or laboratory sense.

Expenditures represent research and development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense if they are for activities intended to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a product.  Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the product or the appropriate design of the product.

Whether expenditures qualify as research or experimental expenditures depends on the nature of the activity to which the expenditures relate, not the nature of the product or improvement being developed or the level of technological advancement the product or improvement represents.

Section 174 treatment is allowed only to the extent that the amount is reasonable under the circumstances.  Expenditures for land and depreciable property are not allowed under section 174, although in certain cases, depreciation may be treated as a section 174 expense.  (Depreciation is not a QRE under section 41).  Exploration expenditures do not qualify as section 174 expenses.  Furthermore, the provisions of section 174 are not applicable to any expenditure paid or incurred for the purpose of ascertaining the existence, location, extent, or quality of any deposit of ore, oil, gas, or other mineral.  Refer to the regulations under section 174 for further explanation on specific expense disallowances.

Treasury Regulation section 1.174-2(a)(3) disallows section 174 treatment for certain activities, including:

• The ordinary testing or inspection of materials or products for quality control;
• Efficiency surveys;
• Management studies;
• Consumer surveys;
• Advertising or promotions;
• The acquisition of another’s patent, model, production or process; or
• Research in connection with literary, historical, or similar projects.

Since section 41 is more restrictive than section 174, expenses allowable under section 174 will still have to meet the other requirements of section 41(b) and (d) to be a QRE.  For example, patent procurement expenses generally qualify under section 174 but would not qualify under section 41.

(2). The discovering technological information test

Final regulations, issued in January 2004 (TD 9104),  12 mirror the 2001 proposed regulations with respect to the discovering technological information test.  There is no “discovery” requirement under section 41 separate and apart from that already required under Treasury Regulation section 1.174-2(a)(1) (i.e., was the research undertaken to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component).  The final regulations, like the proposed regulations, abandon the requirement that the research activities be undertaken to obtain knowledge that exceeds, expands or refines the common knowledge of skilled professionals in a particular field of science or engineering.

Research is undertaken for the purpose of discovering information if it is intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component.  Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the business component, or the appropriate design of the business component.

In order to satisfy the technological in nature requirement for qualified research, the process of experimentation used to discover information must fundamentally rely on principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.  A taxpayer may employ existing technologies and may rely on existing principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science to satisfy this requirement.

The final regulations state that the issuance of a patent by the Patent and Trademark Office under 35 USC sections 51 is conclusive evidence that a taxpayer has discovered information that is technological in nature that is intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component.  This is known as the “patent safe-harbor”.  Be aware that the issuance of a patent is not conclusive evidence of qualified research, as the taxpayer still has to meet all the other activity requirements of section 41(d).  Examiners should note that the securing of a patent usually occurs sometime after the actual research year(s).

(3). The business component test

The taxpayer must intend to apply the information being discovered to develop a new or improved business component of the taxpayer.  A business component is any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention, which is to be held for sale, lease, license, or used in a trade or business of the taxpayer.  Often times, taxpayers group all research in one broad category and do not identify the specific business component to which the business relates.  A taxpayer must be able to tie the research it is claiming for the credit to the relevant business component.  The ‘substantially all’ test is applied at the business component level.

(4). The process of experimentation test

The final research credit regulations provide rules on the “process of experimentation test”, which requires that qualified research be research “substantially all of the activities of which constitute elements of a process of experimentation”.

The final regulations clarify the requirement that a process of experimentation is a process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability or the method of achieving that result, or the appropriate design of that result, is uncertain as of the beginning of the taxpayer’s research activities.  Examiners are encouraged to read the preamble to these regulations to get a better understanding of the changes made.  A taxpayer may undertake a process of experimentation if there is no uncertainty concerning the taxpayer's capability or method of achieving the desired result, so long as the appropriate design of the desired result is uncertain as of the beginning of the taxpayer's research activities.  Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the business component, or the appropriate design of the business component.

The final regulations articulate the core elements of a process of experimentation.  In addition to requiring that the research be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information that is technological in nature, the taxpayer must:

• Identify the uncertainty regarding the development or improvement of a business component that is the object of the taxpayer’s research activities;
• Identify one or more alternatives intended to eliminate that uncertainty; and
• Identify and conduct a process of evaluating the alternatives.

The key difference regarding “uncertainty” in sections 41 and 174 is that, under section 41, uncertainly must relate to a qualified purpose, and must be resolved through a 3-element process of experimentation, fundamentally relying on the principles of the hard sciences, engineering, or computer science.  The regulations clarify that merely demonstrating that uncertainty has been eliminated is insufficient to satisfy the process of experimentation test.  Focus upon developing facts necessary to determine whether the taxpayer’s activities meet these requirements and the core elements.

The preamble to the final regulations states that because of the clarifications made, the readily discernible and applicable provision in the 2001 proposed regulations is no longer necessary, because those activities do not constitute a process of experimentation under the final regulations.  Accordingly, examiners who properly applied the “readily discernible and applicable” rule as a basis for disallowing the research credit have made proper adjustments.  In pending and future examinations, however, the readily discernible and applicable standard should not be applied to a taxpayer’s activities.

In order for activities to constitute qualified research under section 41(d)(1), 80 percent or more of taxpayer’s research activities, measured on a cost or other consistently applied reasonable basis (and without regard to Treasury Regulation section 1.41-2(d)(2)), must constitute elements of a process of experimentation for a qualified purpose.  The regulations provide that, if this substantially all requirement is met, then the balance of the research activities may qualify, if the remaining balance meets the requirements of section 41(d)(1)(A) (with respect to which expenditures may be treated as expenses under section 174), and if they are not excluded activities under section 41(d)(4) (such as research after commercial production, adaptation or duplication of an existing business component, etc.).

Although the final regulations are effective for taxable years ending after December 31, 2003, the Service will not challenge return positions that are consistent with the final regulations.  As these final regulations merely clarify the proposed regulations upon which taxpayers are already relying, the Service’s administrative approach will follow these final rules for all open years.

The process of experimentation must be conducted for a “qualified purpose”, i.e., it must relate to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of the business component.  The process of experimentation is not for a qualified purpose if it relates to style, taste, cosmetic, or seasonal design factors.  I.R.C. § 41(d)(3)(B).  Accordingly, be alert to claimed QREs for research related to non-functional aspects of the business component.

b. Shrink back

The requirements of section 41(d) are to be applied first at the level of the discrete business component, i.e., the product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention to be held for sale, lease, or license, or used by the taxpayer in its trade or business.

If the requirements for credit eligibility are met at that first level, then some, or all, of the taxpayer's research activities are eligible for the credit.  If all aspects of such requirements are not met at that level, the test applies at the most significant subset of elements of the product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention to be held for sale, lease, or license.  This “shrinking back” is to continue until either a subset of elements of the business component that satisfies the requirements is reached, or the most basic element of the business component is reached and such element fails to satisfy the test.

The burden is on the taxpayer to establish that all of the section 41(d)(1) requirements have been met.  The examiner should issue an IDR requesting a list of each qualifying project or activity, along with a complete description of that activity or project as a starting point in the evaluation, including the business component to which each research activity relates.  As with the evaluation of wages, interviews should be considered to supplement and corroborate information obtained from the review of existing records.

c. Exclusions

There are certain research activities that are specifically excluded from qualified research under section 41(d)(4).  It is critical to look at the underlying facts to see if the exclusions apply.  Taxpayer labels are not controlling.  The following activities are not qualified research:

1. Exclusion for research after commercial production

Section 41(d) (4) states that qualified research does not include any research conducted after the beginning of commercial production.  A business component is considered ready for commercial production when it is developed to the point where it is ready for use or meets the basic functional and economic requirements of the taxpayer.  In some cases, there may be “product release” documents where all responsible managers sign off that the new product and or new production method is now released for production, which may be helpful in the application of this exclusion.

The following activities are deemed to occur after the commencement of commercial production:

• Preproduction planning for a finished business component,
• Tooling up for production,
• Trial production runs,
• Troubleshooting involving detecting faults in production equipment or processes,
• Accumulating data relating to production processes, and
• Debugging flaws in a business component.

This per se list includes “debugging” activities, but not “correction of flaws”.  Treasury Regulation section 1.41 4(c)(10), Examples 1 and 2, illustrate the application of the exclusion for research after commercial production.

2. Exclusion for adaptation

This exclusion applies if the taxpayer's activities relate to adapting an existing business component to a particular customer's requirement or need.  This exclusion does not apply merely because a business component is intended for a specific customer.  A contractor’s adaptation of an existing business component to a taxpayer’s particular requirement or need is not qualified research.

Treasury Regulation section 1.41 4(c)(10), Examples 3 7, illustrates the application of the adaptation exclusion.

3. Exclusion for duplication

This exclusion applies if the taxpayer reproduced an existing business component, in whole or in part, from a physical examination of the business component, plans, blueprints, detailed specifications, or publicly available information with respect to such component.  This exclusion does not apply merely because the taxpayer evaluates another's business component in the course of developing its own business component. 

Treasury Regulation section 1.41 4(c)(10), Example 8, illustrates the application of the duplication exclusion. 

4. Exclusion for surveys, studies, research relating to management functions

The following activities are excluded under this provision:

• Management functions or techniques, including such items as preparation of  financial data and analysis, development of employee training programs and management organization plans, and management based changes in production processes (such as rearranging work stations on an assembly line);
• Market research, testing, or development (including advertising or promotions);
• Routine data collections; or
• Routine or ordinary testing or inspections for quality control. 

Treasury Regulation section 41 4(c)(10), Example 9, illustrates the application of this exclusion.

Note that it is the activity which governs, not the intended end result.  For example, the development of a new production process, which met all the tests for qualified research, would not be excluded simply because the activity was preceded by a management efficiency survey.

5. Exclusion for internal-use software

This exclusion is beyond the scope of this ATG. 

6. Exclusion for foreign research

Qualified research does not include any research conducted outside the United States, Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States. 13   This exclusion applies to in-house, as well as contract research.  The foreign research disallowance applies even if the research is done by American researchers, or performed for an American taxpayer.

7. Exclusion for research in the social sciences, etc.

Qualified research does not include research in the social sciences (including economics, business management, and behavioral sciences, arts, or humanities).

Treasury Regulation section 1.41 4(c)(10), Example 10, illustrates the application of this exclusion.  Note that the process, not the end result, governs.  The development of new formulation of artists’ paint would not be excluded simply because it benefited the arts, while research into Van Gogh’s life would be excluded under this rule.

8. Exclusion for funded research 

The exclusion for "funded research" under section 41(d)(4)(H) provides that the credit shall not be available for qualified research to the extent funded by a contract, grant, or otherwise by another person (or governmental entity).

All agreements (not only research contracts) entered into between the taxpayer performing the research and other persons are to be considered in determining the extent to which the research is funded.  As a result, the examiner should request a complete copy of all contracts (including modifications), agreements, letters of understanding or similar documents where funding is an issue. These contracts and similar documents will need to be reviewed to determine whether, and to what, extent the research is to be considered funded.  A “fixed-price” contract, where the customer agrees to pay a set price for a deliverable, and a “cost-plus” contract, where the customer agrees to pay the actual costs incurred by the contractor in acquiring/constructing the deliverable plus an additional amount for profit, are examples of the different contracts you may encounter.  Counsel can be helpful in securing and interpreting these agreements.  In the case of documents that are “classified” by a government agency, contact the Classified Contract Technical Advisor or a Research Credit Technical Advisor for further assistance.

In order to determine if the contractor’s research expenditures are “funded”, you must resolve the following issues:

• Is payment for the contractor’s research activities “contingent upon the success of the research” under Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(1)? 
• Does the contractor retain “substantial rights” in the results of the research activities within the meaning of Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(2)?

If the answer to either question is no, then the research is treated as funded.  Amounts payable under any agreements that are contingent on the success of the research (thus considered to be paid for the product or result of the research) are treated as funded research.  If a contractor retains substantial rights in the results of the research, and if payment to him is contingent on the success of the research, then the contract is not funded and the contractor is eligible to claim the credit.

 Note that, if the contractor performing research for another person does not retain substantial rights in the research, and if the research payments are contingent on the contractor’s success, neither the contractor nor the person paying for the research is eligible to claim the credit.

 If a taxpayer performing qualified research for another person retains substantial rights in the research under the agreement providing for the research, the research is funded to the extent of the payments (and fair market value of any property) to which the taxpayer becomes entitled by performing the research.  A taxpayer does not retain substantial rights in the research if the taxpayer must pay for the right to use the results of the research.

Frequently, taxpayers make some sort of funding allocation between “qualified research” and “non-qualified research” expenditures incurred in certain types of contracts, e.g., cost-share or cost overrun situations.  In so doing, taxpayers often overlook the “pro rata allocation” requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(3)(ii).

The general rule is that funding is to be allocated 100 percent to otherwise qualified research expenses (as provided by Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(3)(i)) unless the taxpayer can meet the pro rata allocation requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(3)(ii).

Pursuant to Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(3)(ii), the taxpayer may allocate funding pro rata to nonqualified, and otherwise qualified research expenses, rather than allocating it 100 percent to otherwise qualified research expenses, if the taxpayer can establish to the satisfaction of the Service:

• the total amount of research expenses,
• that the total amount of research expenses exceed the funding, and
• that the otherwise qualified research expenses (that is, the expenses that would be qualified research expenses if there were no funding) exceed 65 percent of the funding.

In no event, however, shall less than 65 percent of the funding be applied against the otherwise qualified research expenses.  Material adjustments may be warranted if the specific requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(3)(ii) have not been met.

Funding is determinable only in the subsequent taxable year.  Treasury Regulation section 1.41-4A(d)(5) states that if, at the time the taxpayer files its return for a taxable year, it is impossible to determine to what extent particular research performed by the taxpayer during the year may be funded, then the taxpayer shall treat the research as completely funded for purposes of completing that return.  When the amount of funding is finally determined, the taxpayer should amend the return and any interim returns to reflect the proper amount of funding.

11   In the case of certain software developed for internal use, taxpayers must meet the requirements of an additional three-part “high threshold of innovation” test.  See Prop. Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(c)(6)(vi). See also the ANPRM relating to the section 41(d)(4)(E) internal use software exclusion.

12   Final Regulations for the Definition of Qualified Research under section 41(d) (doc, 90kb), also in HTML (htm, 137kb) and Adobe (pdf, 65kb), T.D. 9104.

13 Section 41(d)(4)(F) was modified by P.L. 106-170 section 502(c)(1) which added the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any possession of the United States for amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.  Prior to amendment, section 41(d)(4)(F) applied only to the United States.

Chapter 4  | Table of Contents  | Chapter 6

•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  Linkedin

You are using an unsupported browser ×

You are using an unsupported browser. This web site is designed for the current versions of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Safari.

Site Feedback

The Office of the Federal Register publishes documents on behalf of Federal agencies but does not have any authority over their programs. We recommend you directly contact the agency associated with the content in question.

If you have comments or suggestions on how to improve the www.ecfr.gov website or have questions about using www.ecfr.gov, please choose the 'Website Feedback' button below.

If you would like to comment on the current content, please use the 'Content Feedback' button below for instructions on contacting the issuing agency

Website Feedback

• Incorporation by Reference
• Recent Updates
• Recent Changes
• Corrections
• Reader Aids Home
• Using the eCFR Point-in-Time System
• Understanding the eCFR
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Developer Resources
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up

Hi, Sign Out

The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

Enhanced content :: cross reference.

Enhanced content is provided to the user to provide additional context.

Navigate by entering citations or phrases (eg: suggestions#fillExample" class="example badge badge-info">1 CFR 1.1 suggestions#fillExample" class="example badge badge-info">49 CFR 172.101 suggestions#fillExample" class="example badge badge-info">Organization and Purpose suggestions#fillExample" class="example badge badge-info">1/1.1 suggestions#fillExample" class="example badge badge-info">Regulation Y suggestions#fillExample" class="example badge badge-info">FAR ).

Choosing an item from citations and headings will bring you directly to the content. Choosing an item from full text search results will bring you to those results. Pressing enter in the search box will also bring you to search results.

Background and more details are available in the Search & Navigation guide.

• Title 26 —Internal Revenue
• Chapter I —Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury
• Subchapter A —Income Tax
• Part 1 —Income Taxes

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

The in-page Table of Contents is available only when multiple sections are being viewed.

Use the navigation links in the gray bar above to view the table of contents that this content belongs to.

Enhanced Content - Details

26 U.S.C. 7805 , unless otherwise noted. Section 1.1(h)-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1(h) ; Section 1.170A-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 170(a) . See Part 1 for more

T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402 , Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021 , Dec. 21, 1960; T.D. 9989, 89 FR 17606 , Mar. 11, 2024, unless otherwise noted. T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402 , Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021 , Dec. 21, 1960, unless otherwise noted. T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402 , Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021 , Dec. 31, 1960, T.D. 9381, 73 FR 8604 , Feb. 15, 2008, unless otherwise noted. See Part 1 for more

T.D. 9923, 85 FR 74034 , Nov. 19, 2020, unless otherwise noted.

Sections 1.1398-1 and 1.1398-2 appear at T.D. 8537, 59 FR 24937 , May 13, 1994, unless otherwise noted.

Sections 1.6001-1 through 1.6091-4 contained in T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12108 , Nov. 26, 1960, unless otherwise noted.

Sections 1.6161-1 through 1.6165-1 contained in T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12140 , Nov. 26, 1960, unless otherwise noted.

Sections 1.9000-1 through 1.9000-8 contained in T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12155 , Nov. 26, 1960, unless otherwise noted. Sections 1.9001 through 1.9001-4 contained in T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12158 , Nov. 26, 1960, unless otherwise noted.

Enhanced Content - Print

Generate PDF

This content is from the eCFR and may include recent changes applied to the CFR. The official, published CFR, is updated annually and available below under "Published Edition". You can learn more about the process here .

Enhanced Content - Display Options

The eCFR is displayed with paragraphs split and indented to follow the hierarchy of the document. This is an automated process for user convenience only and is not intended to alter agency intent or existing codification.

A separate drafting site is available with paragraph structure matching the official CFR formatting. If you work for a Federal agency, use this drafting site when drafting amendatory language for Federal regulations: switch to eCFR drafting site .

Enhanced Content - Subscribe

Subscribe to: 26 CFR 1.41-4A

Enhanced Content - Timeline

No changes found for this content after 1/03/2017.

Enhanced Content - Go to Date

Enhanced content - compare dates, enhanced content - published edition.

View the most recent official publication:

• View Title 26 on govinfo.gov
• View the PDF for 26 CFR 1.41-4A

These links go to the official, published CFR, which is updated annually. As a result, it may not include the most recent changes applied to the CFR. Learn more .

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:

• Hierarchy JSON - Title 26
• Content HTML - Section 1.41-4A
• Content XML - Section 1.41-4A

Information and documentation can be found in our developer resources .

eCFR Content

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official legal print publication containing the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is a continuously updated online version of the CFR. It is not an official legal edition of the CFR.

§ 1.41-4A Qualified research for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1986.

( a ) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in section 30(d) (as that section read before amendment by the Tax Reform Act of 1986) and in this section, the term “qualified research” means research, expenditures for which would be research and experimental expenditures within the meaning of section 174. Expenditures that are ineligible for the section 174 deduction elections are not expenditures for qualified research. For example, expenditures for the acquisition of land or depreciable property used in research, and mineral exploration costs described in section 174(d), are not expenditures for qualified research.

( b ) Activities outside the United States —

( 1 ) In-house research. In-house research conducted outside the United States (as defined in section 7701(a)(9)) cannot constitute qualified research. Thus, wages paid to an employee scientist for services performed in a laboratory in the United States and in a test station in Antarctica must be apportioned between the services performed within the United States and the services performed outside the United States, and only the wages apportioned to the services conducted within the United States are qualified research expenses unless the 80 percent rule of § 1.41-2(d)(2) applies.

( 2 ) Contract research. If contract research is performed partly within the United States and partly without, only 65 percent of the portion of the contract amount that is attributable to the research performed within the United States can qualify as contract research expense (even if 80 percent or more of the contract amount was for research performed in the United States).

( c ) Social sciences or humanities. Qualified research does not include research in the social sciences or humanities. For purposes of section 30(d)(2) (as that section read before amendment by the Tax Reform Act of 1986) and of this section, the phrase “research in the social sciences or humanities” encompasses all areas of research other than research in a field of laboratory science (such as physics or biochemistry), engineering or technology. Examples of research in the social sciences or humanities include the development of a new life insurance contract, a new economic model or theory, a new accounting procedure or a new cookbook.

( d ) Research funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise —

( 1 ) In general. Research does not constitute qualified research to the extent it is funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person (including any governmental entity). All agreements (not only research contracts) entered into between the taxpayer performing the research and other persons shall be considered in determining the extent to which the research is funded. Amounts payable under any agreement that are contingent on the success of the research and thus considered to be paid for the product or result of the research (see § 1.41-2(e)(2) ) are not treated as funding. For special rules regarding funding between commonly controlled businesses, see § 1.41-6(e) .

( 2 ) Research in which taxpayer retains no rights. If a taxpayer performing research for another person retains no substantial rights in research under the agreement providing for the research, the research is treated as fully funded for purposes of section 41(d)(4)(H), and no expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in performing the research are qualified research expenses. For example, if the taxpayer performs research under an agreement that confers on another person the exclusive right to exploit the results of the research, the taxpayer is not performing qualified research because the research is treated as fully funded under this paragraph (d)(2) . Incidental benefits to the taxpayer from performance of the research (for example, increased experience in a field of research) do not constitute substantial rights in the research. If a taxpayer performing research for another person retains no substantial rights in the research and if the payments to the researcher are contingent upon the success of the research, neither the performer nor the person paying for the research is entitled to treat any portion of the expenditures as qualified research expenditures.

( 3 ) Research in which the taxpayer retains substantial rights —

( i ) In general. If a taxpayer performing research for another person retains substantial rights in the research under the agreement providing for the research, the research is funded to the extent of the payments (and fair market value of any property) to which the taxpayer becomes entitled by performing the research. A taxpayer does not retain substantial rights in the research if the taxpayer must pay for the right to use the results of the research. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, the taxpayer shall reduce the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer for the research that would, but for section 41(d)(4)(H), constitute qualified research expenses of the taxpayer by the amount of funding determined under the preceding sentence.

( ii ) Pro rata allocation. If the taxpayer can establish to the satisfaction of the district director—

( A ) The total amount of research expenses,

( B ) That the total amount of research expenses exceed the funding, and

( C ) That the otherwise qualified research expenses (that is, the expenses which would be qualified research expenses if there were no funding) exceed 65 percent of the funding, then the taxpayer may allocate the funding pro rata to nonqualified and otherwise qualified research expenses, rather than allocating it 100 percent to otherwise qualified research expenses (as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section). In no event, however, shall less than 65 percent of the funding be applied against the otherwise qualified research expenses.

( iii ) Project-by-project determination. The provisions of this paragraph (d)(3) shall be applied separately to each research project undertaken by the taxpayer.

( 4 ) Independent research and development under the Federal Acquisition Regulations System and similar provisions. The Federal Acquisition Regulations System and similar rules and regulations relating to contracts (fixed price, cost plus, etc.) with government entities provide for allocation of certain “independent research and development costs” and “bid and proposal costs” of a contractor to contracts entered into with that contractor. In general, any “independent research and development costs” and “bid and proposal costs” paid to a taxpayer by reason of such a contract shall not be treated as funding the underlying research activities except to the extent the “independent research and development costs” and “bid and proposal costs” are properly severable from the contract. See § 1.451-3(e) ; see also section 804(d)(2) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

( 5 ) Funding determinable only in subsequent taxable year. If at the time the taxpayer files its return for a taxable year, it is impossible to determine to what extent particular research performed by the taxpayer during that year may be funded, then the taxpayer shall treat the research as completely funded for purposes of completing that return. When the amount of funding is finally determined, the taxpayer should amend the return and any interim returns to reflect the proper amount of funding.

( 6 ) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of the principles contained in this paragraph.

A enters into a contract with B Corporation, a cash-method taxpayer using the calendar year as its taxable year, under which B is to perform research that would, but for section 41(d)(3)(H), be qualified research of B. The agreement calls for A to pay B $120x, regardless of the outcome of the research. In 1982, A makes full payment of $120x under the contract, B performs all the research, and B pays all the expenses connected with the research, as follows:

If B has no rights to the research, B is fully funded. Alternatively, assume that B retains the right to use the results of the research in carrying on B's business. Of B's otherwise qualified research expenses of $126x + $26x), $120x is treated as funded by A. Thus $6x ($126x − $120x) is treated as a qualified research expense of B. However, if B establishes the facts required under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, B can allocate the funding pro rata to nonqualified and otherwise qualified research expenses. Thus $100.8x ($120x ($126x/$150x)) would be allocated to otherwise qualified research expenses. B's qualified research expenses would be $25.2x ($126x − $100.8x). For purposes of the following examples (2), (3) and (4) assume that B retains substantial rights to use the results of the research in carrying on B's business.

The facts are the same as in example (1) (assuming that B retains the right to use the results of the research in carrying on B's business) except that, although A makes full payment of $120x during 1982, B does not perform the research or pay the associated expenses until 1983. The computations are unchanged. However, B's qualified research expenses determined in example (1) are qualified research expenses during 1983.

The facts are the same as in example (1) (assuming that B retains the right to use the results of the research in carrying on B's business) except that, although B performs the research and pays the associated expenses during 1982, A does not pay the $120x until 1983. The computations are unchanged and the amount determined in example (1) is a qualified research expense of B during 1982.

The facts are the same as in example (1) (assuming that B retains the right to use the results of the research in carrying on B's business) except that, instead of agreeing to pay B $120x, A agrees to pay $100x regardless of the outcome and an additional $20x only if B's research produces a useful product. B's research produces a useful product and A pays B $120x during 1982. The $20x payment that is conditional on the success of the research is not treated as funding. Assuming that B establishes to the satisfaction of the district director the actual research expenses, B can allocate the funding to nonqualified and otherwise qualified research expenses. Thus $84x ($100x ($126x/$150x)) would be allocated to otherwise qualified research expenses. B's qualified research expenses would be $42x ($126x − $84x).

C enters into a contract with D, a cash-method taxpayer using the calendar year as its taxable year, under which D is to perform research in which both C and D will have substantial rights. C agrees to reimburse D for 80 percent of D's expenses for the research. D performs part of the research in 1982 and the rest in 1983. At the time that D files its return for 1982, D is unable to determine the extent to which the research is funded under the provisions of this paragraph. Under these circumstances, D may not treat any of the expenses paid by D for this research during 1982 as qualified research expenses on its 1982 return. When the project is complete and D can determine the extent of funding, D should file an amended return for 1982 to take into account any qualified research expense for 1982.

[T.D. 8251, 54 FR 21204 , May 17, 1989. Redesignated and amended by T.D. 8930, 66 FR 295 , Jan. 3, 2001]

Editorial Note on Part 1

Editorial note:.

IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513 , May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information