academic writing for methodology

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

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

Structure of Research Methodology

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Research Design

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

III. Data Collection Methods

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

IV. Data Analysis Methods

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

V. Ethical Considerations

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

VI. Limitations

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

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

Qualitative Research Methodology

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

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

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

Case Study Research Methodology

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

Action Research Methodology

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

Experimental Research Methodology

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

Survey Research Methodology

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

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

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

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

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

Introduction:

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

Research Design:

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

Participants:

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

Intervention :

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

Data Collection:

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

Data Analysis:

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

Ethical Considerations:

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

Data Management:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

How to Write Research Methodology

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

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

When to Write Research Methodology

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

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

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

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

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

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Research Methodology

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

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

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates...

Assignment – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Dissertation vs Thesis – Key Differences

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | September 2021 (Updated April 2023)

So, you’ve pinned down your research topic and undertaken a review of the literature – now it’s time to write up the methodology section of your dissertation, thesis or research paper . But what exactly is the methodology chapter all about – and how do you go about writing one? In this post, we’ll unpack the topic, step by step .

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

• The purpose  of the methodology chapter
• Why you need to craft this chapter (really) well
• How to write and structure the chapter
• Methodology chapter example
• Essential takeaways

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

The methodology chapter is where you outline the philosophical underpinnings of your research and outline the specific methodological choices you’ve made. The point of the methodology chapter is to tell the reader exactly how you designed your study and, just as importantly, why you did it this way.

Importantly, this chapter should comprehensively describe and justify all the methodological choices you made in your study. For example, the approach you took to your research (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed), who  you collected data from (i.e., your sampling strategy), how you collected your data and, of course, how you analysed it. If that sounds a little intimidating, don’t worry – we’ll explain all these methodological choices in this post .

Why is the methodology chapter important?

The methodology chapter plays two important roles in your dissertation or thesis:

Firstly, it demonstrates your understanding of research theory, which is what earns you marks. A flawed research design or methodology would mean flawed results. So, this chapter is vital as it allows you to show the marker that you know what you’re doing and that your results are credible .

Secondly, the methodology chapter is what helps to make your study replicable. In other words, it allows other researchers to undertake your study using the same methodological approach, and compare their findings to yours. This is very important within academic research, as each study builds on previous studies.

The methodology chapter is also important in that it allows you to identify and discuss any methodological issues or problems you encountered (i.e., research limitations ), and to explain how you mitigated the impacts of these. Every research project has its limitations , so it’s important to acknowledge these openly and highlight your study’s value despite its limitations . Doing so demonstrates your understanding of research design, which will earn you marks. We’ll discuss limitations in a bit more detail later in this post, so stay tuned!

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

First off, it’s worth noting that the exact structure and contents of the methodology chapter will vary depending on the field of research (e.g., humanities, chemistry or engineering) as well as the university . So, be sure to always check the guidelines provided by your institution for clarity and, if possible, review past dissertations from your university. Here we’re going to discuss a generic structure for a methodology chapter typically found in the sciences.

Before you start writing, it’s always a good idea to draw up a rough outline to guide your writing. Don’t just start writing without knowing what you’ll discuss where. If you do, you’ll likely end up with a disjointed, ill-flowing narrative . You’ll then waste a lot of time rewriting in an attempt to try to stitch all the pieces together. Do yourself a favour and start with the end in mind .

Section 1 – Introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, the methodology chapter should have a brief introduction. In this section, you should remind your readers what the focus of your study is, especially the research aims . As we’ve discussed many times on the blog, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, it’s useful to frontload this component to remind the reader (and yourself!) what you’re trying to achieve.

In this section, you can also briefly mention how you’ll structure the chapter. This will help orient the reader and provide a bit of a roadmap so that they know what to expect. You don’t need a lot of detail here – just a brief outline will do.

Section 2 – The Methodology

The next section of your chapter is where you’ll present the actual methodology. In this section, you need to detail and justify the key methodological choices you’ve made in a logical, intuitive fashion. Importantly, this is the heart of your methodology chapter, so you need to get specific – don’t hold back on the details here. This is not one of those “less is more” situations.

Let’s take a look at the most common components you’ll likely need to cover. 

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to the underlying beliefs (i.e., the worldview) regarding how data about a phenomenon should be gathered , analysed and used . The research philosophy will serve as the core of your study and underpin all of the other research design choices, so it’s critically important that you understand which philosophy you’ll adopt and why you made that choice. If you’re not clear on this, take the time to get clarity before you make any further methodological choices.

While several research philosophies exist, two commonly adopted ones are positivism and interpretivism . These two sit roughly on opposite sides of the research philosophy spectrum.

Positivism states that the researcher can observe reality objectively and that there is only one reality, which exists independently of the observer. As a consequence, it is quite commonly the underlying research philosophy in quantitative studies and is oftentimes the assumed philosophy in the physical sciences.

Contrasted with this, interpretivism , which is often the underlying research philosophy in qualitative studies, assumes that the researcher performs a role in observing the world around them and that reality is unique to each observer . In other words, reality is observed subjectively .

These are just two philosophies (there are many more), but they demonstrate significantly different approaches to research and have a significant impact on all the methodological choices. Therefore, it’s vital that you clearly outline and justify your research philosophy at the beginning of your methodology chapter, as it sets the scene for everything that follows.

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

The next thing you would typically discuss in your methodology section is the research type. The starting point for this is to indicate whether the research you conducted is inductive or deductive .

Inductive research takes a bottom-up approach , where the researcher begins with specific observations or data and then draws general conclusions or theories from those observations. Therefore these studies tend to be exploratory in terms of approach.

Conversely , d eductive research takes a top-down approach , where the researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it using specific observations or data. Therefore these studies tend to be confirmatory in approach.

Related to this, you’ll need to indicate whether your study adopts a qualitative, quantitative or mixed  approach. As we’ve mentioned, there’s a strong link between this choice and your research philosophy, so make sure that your choices are tightly aligned . When you write this section up, remember to clearly justify your choices, as they form the foundation of your study.

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your research strategy (also referred to as a research design ). This methodological choice refers to the broader strategy in terms of how you’ll conduct your research, based on the aims of your study.

Several research strategies exist, including experimental , case studies , ethnography , grounded theory, action research , and phenomenology . Let’s take a look at two of these, experimental and ethnographic, to see how they contrast.

Experimental research makes use of the scientific method , where one group is the control group (in which no variables are manipulated ) and another is the experimental group (in which a specific variable is manipulated). This type of research is undertaken under strict conditions in a controlled, artificial environment (e.g., a laboratory). By having firm control over the environment, experimental research typically allows the researcher to establish causation between variables. Therefore, it can be a good choice if you have research aims that involve identifying causal relationships.

Ethnographic research , on the other hand, involves observing and capturing the experiences and perceptions of participants in their natural environment (for example, at home or in the office). In other words, in an uncontrolled environment.  Naturally, this means that this research strategy would be far less suitable if your research aims involve identifying causation, but it would be very valuable if you’re looking to explore and examine a group culture, for example.

As you can see, the right research strategy will depend largely on your research aims and research questions – in other words, what you’re trying to figure out. Therefore, as with every other methodological choice, it’s essential to justify why you chose the research strategy you did.

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

The next thing you’ll need to detail in your methodology chapter is the time horizon. There are two options here: cross-sectional and longitudinal . In other words, whether the data for your study were all collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) or at multiple points in time (longitudinal).

The choice you make here depends again on your research aims, objectives and research questions. If, for example, you aim to assess how a specific group of people’s perspectives regarding a topic change over time , you’d likely adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Another important factor to consider is simply whether you have the time necessary to adopt a longitudinal approach (which could involve collecting data over multiple months or even years). Oftentimes, the time pressures of your degree program will force your hand into adopting a cross-sectional time horizon, so keep this in mind.

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your sampling strategy . There are two main categories of sampling, probability and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves a random (and therefore representative) selection of participants from a population, whereas non-probability sampling entails selecting participants in a non-random  (and therefore non-representative) manner. For example, selecting participants based on ease of access (this is called a convenience sample).

The right sampling approach depends largely on what you’re trying to achieve in your study. Specifically, whether you trying to develop findings that are generalisable to a population or not. Practicalities and resource constraints also play a large role here, as it can oftentimes be challenging to gain access to a truly random sample. In the video below, we explore some of the most common sampling strategies.

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

Next up, you’ll need to explain how you’ll go about collecting the necessary data for your study. Your data collection method (or methods) will depend on the type of data that you plan to collect – in other words, qualitative or quantitative data.

Typically, quantitative research relies on surveys , data generated by lab equipment, analytics software or existing datasets. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often makes use of collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , participant observations, and ethnography.

So, as you can see, there is a tight link between this section and the design choices you outlined in earlier sections. Strong alignment between these sections, as well as your research aims and questions is therefore very important.

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

The final major methodological choice that you need to address is that of analysis techniques . In other words, how you’ll go about analysing your date once you’ve collected it. Here it’s important to be very specific about your analysis methods and/or techniques – don’t leave any room for interpretation. Also, as with all choices in this chapter, you need to justify each choice you make.

What exactly you discuss here will depend largely on the type of study you’re conducting (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). For qualitative studies, common analysis methods include content analysis , thematic analysis and discourse analysis . In the video below, we explain each of these in plain language.

For quantitative studies, you’ll almost always make use of descriptive statistics , and in many cases, you’ll also use inferential statistical techniques (e.g., correlation and regression analysis). In the video below, we unpack some of the core concepts involved in descriptive and inferential statistics.

In this section of your methodology chapter, it’s also important to discuss how you prepared your data for analysis, and what software you used (if any). For example, quantitative data will often require some initial preparation such as removing duplicates or incomplete responses . Similarly, qualitative data will often require transcription and perhaps even translation. As always, remember to state both what you did and why you did it.

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

With the key methodological choices outlined and justified, the next step is to discuss the limitations of your design. No research methodology is perfect – there will always be trade-offs between the “ideal” methodology and what’s practical and viable, given your constraints. Therefore, this section of your methodology chapter is where you’ll discuss the trade-offs you had to make, and why these were justified given the context.

Methodological limitations can vary greatly from study to study, ranging from common issues such as time and budget constraints to issues of sample or selection bias . For example, you may find that you didn’t manage to draw in enough respondents to achieve the desired sample size (and therefore, statistically significant results), or your sample may be skewed heavily towards a certain demographic, thereby negatively impacting representativeness .

In this section, it’s important to be critical of the shortcomings of your study. There’s no use trying to hide them (your marker will be aware of them regardless). By being critical, you’ll demonstrate to your marker that you have a strong understanding of research theory, so don’t be shy here. At the same time, don’t beat your study to death . State the limitations, why these were justified, how you mitigated their impacts to the best degree possible, and how your study still provides value despite these limitations .

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

Finally, it’s time to wrap up the methodology chapter with a brief concluding summary. In this section, you’ll want to concisely summarise what you’ve presented in the chapter. Here, it can be a good idea to use a figure to summarise the key decisions, especially if your university recommends using a specific model (for example, Saunders’ Research Onion ).

Importantly, this section needs to be brief – a paragraph or two maximum (it’s a summary, after all). Also, make sure that when you write up your concluding summary, you include only what you’ve already discussed in your chapter; don’t add any new information.

Methodology Chapter Example

In the video below, we walk you through an example of a high-quality research methodology chapter from a dissertation. We also unpack our free methodology chapter template so that you can see how best to structure your chapter.

Wrapping Up

And there you have it – the methodology chapter in a nutshell. As we’ve mentioned, the exact contents and structure of this chapter can vary between universities , so be sure to check in with your institution before you start writing. If possible, try to find dissertations or theses from former students of your specific degree program – this will give you a strong indication of the expectations and norms when it comes to the methodology chapter (and all the other chapters!).

Also, remember the golden rule of the methodology chapter – justify every choice ! Make sure that you clearly explain the “why” for every “what”, and reference credible methodology textbooks or academic sources to back up your justifications.

If you need a helping hand with your research methodology (or any other component of your research), be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through every step of the research journey. Until next time, good luck!

Psst... there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

Thank you very much. I must say the information presented was succinct, coherent and invaluable. It is well put together and easy to comprehend. I have a great guide to create the research methodology for my dissertation.

Highly clear and useful.

I understand a bit on the explanation above. I want to have some coach but I’m still student and don’t have any budget to hire one. A lot of question I want to ask.

Thank you so much. This concluded my day plan. Thank you so much.

Thanks it was helpful

Great information. It would be great though if you could show us practical examples.

Thanks so much for this information. God bless and be with you

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

I was totally confused by other explanations. Thank you so much!.

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

This is exactly what I was looking for. The explanation is so detailed and easy to comprehend. Well done and thank you.

Great job. You just summarised everything in the easiest and most comprehensible way possible. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for the ideas you have given this will really help me a lot. Thank you and God Bless.

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

Please accept my sincere gratitude. I have to say that the information that was delivered was congruent, concise, and quite helpful. It is clear and straightforward, making it simple to understand. I am in possession of an excellent manual that will assist me in developing the research methods for my dissertation.

Thank you for your great explanation. It really helped me construct my methodology paper.

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

The explanation I have been looking for. So clear Thank you

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

helped me create the in depth and thorough methodology for my dissertation

Thank you for the great explaination.please construct one methodology for me

I appreciate you for the explanation of methodology. Please construct one methodology on the topic: The effects influencing students dropout among schools for my thesis

This helped me complete my methods section of my dissertation with ease. I have managed to write a thorough and concise methodology!

its so good in deed

wow …what an easy to follow presentation. very invaluable content shared. utmost important.

Peace be upon you, I am Dr. Ahmed Khedr, a former part-time professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. I am currently teaching research methods, and I have been dealing with your esteemed site for several years, and I found that despite my long experience with research methods sites, it is one of the smoothest sites for evaluating the material for students, For this reason, I relied on it a lot in teaching and translated most of what was written into Arabic and published it on my own page on Facebook. Thank you all… Everything I posted on my page is provided with the names of the writers of Grad coach, the title of the article, and the site. My best regards.

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

Only true experts could provide such helpful, fantastic, and inspiring knowledge about Methodology. Thank you very much! God be with you and us all!

highly appreciate your effort.

This is a very well thought out post. Very informative and a great read.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

I love you Emma, you are simply amazing with clear explanations with complete information. GradCoach really helped me to do my assignment here in Auckland. Mostly, Emma make it so simple and enjoyable

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Your Methods

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

• Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
• Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
• Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
• Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
• What participants did you decide to exclude? 
• What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

• Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
• Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
• Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
• Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
• Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
• Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
• Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

Don’t

• Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
• Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
• Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

Writing a research paper is both an art and a skill, and knowing how to write the methods section of a research paper is the first crucial step in mastering scientific writing. If, like the majority of early career researchers, you believe that the methods section is the simplest to write and needs little in the way of careful consideration or thought, this article will help you understand it is not 1 .

We have all probably asked our supervisors, coworkers, or search engines “ how to write a methods section of a research paper ” at some point in our scientific careers, so you are not alone if that’s how you ended up here.  Even for seasoned researchers, selecting what to include in the methods section from a wealth of experimental information can occasionally be a source of distress and perplexity.   

Additionally, journal specifications, in some cases, may make it more of a requirement rather than a choice to provide a selective yet descriptive account of the experimental procedure. Hence, knowing these nuances of how to write the methods section of a research paper is critical to its success. The methods section of the research paper is not supposed to be a detailed heavy, dull section that some researchers tend to write; rather, it should be the central component of the study that justifies the validity and reliability of the research.

Are you still unsure of how the methods section of a research paper forms the basis of every investigation? Consider the last article you read but ignore the methods section and concentrate on the other parts of the paper . Now think whether you could repeat the study and be sure of the credibility of the findings despite knowing the literature review and even having the data in front of you. You have the answer!   

Having established the importance of the methods section , the next question is how to write the methods section of a research paper that unifies the overall study. The purpose of the methods section , which was earlier called as Materials and Methods , is to describe how the authors went about answering the “research question” at hand. Here, the objective is to tell a coherent story that gives a detailed account of how the study was conducted, the rationale behind specific experimental procedures, the experimental setup, objects (variables) involved, the research protocol employed, tools utilized to measure, calculations and measurements, and the analysis of the collected data 2 .

In this article, we will take a deep dive into this topic and provide a detailed overview of how to write the methods section of a research paper . For the sake of clarity, we have separated the subject into various sections with corresponding subheadings.  

Table of Contents

What is the methods section of a research paper ?  

The methods section is a fundamental section of any paper since it typically discusses the ‘ what ’, ‘ how ’, ‘ which ’, and ‘ why ’ of the study, which is necessary to arrive at the final conclusions. In a research article, the introduction, which serves to set the foundation for comprehending the background and results is usually followed by the methods section, which precedes the result and discussion sections. The methods section must explicitly state what was done, how it was done, which equipment, tools and techniques were utilized, how were the measurements/calculations taken, and why specific research protocols, software, and analytical methods were employed.  

Why is the methods section important?  

The primary goal of the methods section is to provide pertinent details about the experimental approach so that the reader may put the results in perspective and, if necessary, replicate the findings 3 .  This section offers readers the chance to evaluate the reliability and validity of any study. In short, it also serves as the study’s blueprint, assisting researchers who might be unsure about any other portion in establishing the study’s context and validity. The methods plays a rather crucial role in determining the fate of the article; an incomplete and unreliable methods section can frequently result in early rejections and may lead to numerous rounds of modifications during the publication process. This means that the reviewers also often use methods section to assess the reliability and validity of the research protocol and the data analysis employed to address the research topic. In other words, the purpose of the methods section is to demonstrate the research acumen and subject-matter expertise of the author(s) in their field.  

Structure of methods section of a research paper  

Similar to the research paper, the methods section also follows a defined structure; this may be dictated by the guidelines of a specific journal or can be presented in a chronological or thematic manner based on the study type. When writing the methods section , authors should keep in mind that they are telling a story about how the research was conducted. They should only report relevant information to avoid confusing the reader and include details that would aid in connecting various aspects of the entire research activity together. It is generally advisable to present experiments in the order in which they were conducted. This facilitates the logical flow of the research and allows readers to follow the progression of the study design.   

It is also essential to clearly state the rationale behind each experiment and how the findings of earlier experiments informed the design or interpretation of later experiments. This allows the readers to understand the overall purpose of the study design and the significance of each experiment within that context. However, depending on the particular research question and method, it may make sense to present information in a different order; therefore, authors must select the best structure and strategy for their individual studies.   

In cases where there is a lot of information, divide the sections into subheadings to cover the pertinent details. If the journal guidelines pose restrictions on the word limit , additional important information can be supplied in the supplementary files. A simple rule of thumb for sectioning the method section is to begin by explaining the methodological approach ( what was done ), describing the data collection methods ( how it was done ), providing the analysis method ( how the data was analyzed ), and explaining the rationale for choosing the methodological strategy. This is described in detail in the upcoming sections.    

How to write the methods section of a research paper  

Contrary to widespread assumption, the methods section of a research paper should be prepared once the study is complete to prevent missing any key parameter. Hence, please make sure that all relevant experiments are done before you start writing a methods section . The next step for authors is to look up any applicable academic style manuals or journal-specific standards to ensure that the methods section is formatted correctly. The methods section of a research paper typically constitutes materials and methods; while writing this section, authors usually arrange the information under each category.

The materials category describes the samples, materials, treatments, and instruments, while experimental design, sample preparation, data collection, and data analysis are a part of the method category. According to the nature of the study, authors should include additional subsections within the methods section, such as ethical considerations like the declaration of Helsinki (for studies involving human subjects), demographic information of the participants, and any other crucial information that can affect the output of the study. Simply put, the methods section has two major components: content and format. Here is an easy checklist for you to consider if you are struggling with how to write the methods section of a research paper .   

• Explain the research design, subjects, and sample details  
• Include information on inclusion and exclusion criteria  
• Mention ethical or any other permission required for the study  
• Include information about materials, experimental setup, tools, and software  
• Add details of data collection and analysis methods  
• Incorporate how research biases were avoided or confounding variables were controlled  
• Evaluate and justify the experimental procedure selected to address the research question  
• Provide precise and clear details of each experiment  
• Flowcharts, infographics, or tables can be used to present complex information     
• Use past tense to show that the experiments have been done   
• Follow academic style guides (such as APA or MLA ) to structure the content  
• Citations should be included as per standard protocols in the field  

Now that you know how to write the methods section of a research paper , let’s address another challenge researchers face while writing the methods section —what to include in the methods section .  How much information is too much is not always obvious when it comes to trying to include data in the methods section of a paper. In the next section, we examine this issue and explore potential solutions.   

What to include in the methods section of a research paper  

The technical nature of the methods section occasionally makes it harder to present the information clearly and concisely while staying within the study context. Many young researchers tend to veer off subject significantly, and they frequently commit the sin of becoming bogged down in itty bitty details, making the text harder to read and impairing its overall flow. However, the best way to write the methods section is to start with crucial components of the experiments. If you have trouble deciding which elements are essential, think about leaving out those that would make it more challenging to comprehend the context or replicate the results. The top-down approach helps to ensure all relevant information is incorporated and vital information is not lost in technicalities. Next, remember to add details that are significant to assess the validity and reliability of the study. Here is a simple checklist for you to follow ( bonus tip: you can also make a checklist for your own study to avoid missing any critical information while writing the methods section ).  

• Structuring the methods section : Authors should diligently follow journal guidelines and adhere to the specific author instructions provided when writing the methods section . Journals typically have specific guidelines for formatting the methods section ; for example, Frontiers in Plant Sciences advises arranging the materials and methods section by subheading and citing relevant literature. There are several standardized checklists available for different study types in the biomedical field, including CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized clinical trials, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) for cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies. Before starting the methods section , check the checklist available in your field that can function as a guide.     
• Organizing different sections to tell a story : Once you are sure of the format required for structuring the methods section , the next is to present the sections in a logical manner; as mentioned earlier, the sections can be organized according to the chronology or themes. In the chronological arrangement, you should discuss the methods in accordance with how the experiments were carried out. An example of the method section of a research paper of an animal study should first ideally include information about the species, weight, sex, strain, and age. Next, the number of animals, their initial conditions, and their living and housing conditions should also be mentioned. Second, how the groups are assigned and the intervention (drug treatment, stress, or other) given to each group, and finally, the details of tools and techniques used to measure, collect, and analyze the data. Experiments involving animal or human subjects should additionally state an ethics approval statement. It is best to arrange the section using the thematic approach when discussing distinct experiments not following a sequential order.  
• Define and explain the objects and procedure: Experimental procedure should clearly be stated in the methods section . Samples, necessary preparations (samples, treatment, and drug), and methods for manipulation need to be included. All variables (control, dependent, independent, and confounding) must be clearly defined, particularly if the confounding variables can affect the outcome of the study.  
• Match the order of the methods section with the order of results: Though not mandatory, organizing the manuscript in a logical and coherent manner can improve the readability and clarity of the paper. This can be done by following a consistent structure throughout the manuscript; readers can easily navigate through the different sections and understand the methods and results in relation to each other. Using experiment names as headings for both the methods and results sections can also make it simpler for readers to locate specific information and corroborate it if needed.   
• Relevant information must always be included: The methods section should have information on all experiments conducted and their details clearly mentioned. Ask the journal whether there is a way to offer more information in the supplemental files or external repositories if your target journal has strict word limitations. For example, Nature communications encourages authors to deposit their step-by-step protocols in an open-resource depository, Protocol Exchange which allows the protocols to be linked with the manuscript upon publication. Providing access to detailed protocols also helps to increase the transparency and reproducibility of the research.  
• It’s all in the details: The methods section should meticulously list all the materials, tools, instruments, and software used for different experiments. Specify the testing equipment on which data was obtained, together with its manufacturer’s information, location, city, and state or any other stimuli used to manipulate the variables. Provide specifics on the research process you employed; if it was a standard protocol, cite previous studies that also used the protocol.  Include any protocol modifications that were made, as well as any other factors that were taken into account when planning the study or gathering data. Any new or modified techniques should be explained by the authors. Typically, readers evaluate the reliability and validity of the procedures using the cited literature, and a widely accepted checklist helps to support the credibility of the methodology. Note: Authors should include a statement on sample size estimation (if applicable), which is often missed. It enables the reader to determine how many subjects will be required to detect the expected change in the outcome variables within a given confidence interval.  
• Write for the audience: While explaining the details in the methods section , authors should be mindful of their target audience, as some of the rationale or assumptions on which specific procedures are based might not always be obvious to the audience, particularly for a general audience. Therefore, when in doubt, the objective of a procedure should be specified either in relation to the research question or to the entire protocol.  
• Data interpretation and analysis : Information on data processing, statistical testing, levels of significance, and analysis tools and software should be added. Mention if the recommendations and expertise of an experienced statistician were followed. Also, evaluate and justify the preferred statistical method used in the study and its significance.  

What NOT to include in the methods section of a research paper  

To address “ how to write the methods section of a research paper ”, authors should not only pay careful attention to what to include but also what not to include in the methods section of a research paper . Here is a list of do not’s when writing the methods section :  

• Do not elaborate on specifics of standard methods/procedures: You should refrain from adding unnecessary details of experiments and practices that are well established and cited previously.  Instead, simply cite relevant literature or mention if the manufacturer’s protocol was followed.  
• Do not add unnecessary details : Do not include minute details of the experimental procedure and materials/instruments used that are not significant for the outcome of the experiment. For example, there is no need to mention the brand name of the water bath used for incubation.    
• Do not discuss the results: The methods section is not to discuss the results or refer to the tables and figures; save it for the results and discussion section. Also, focus on the methods selected to conduct the study and avoid diverting to other methods or commenting on their pros or cons.  
• Do not make the section bulky : For extensive methods and protocols, provide the essential details and share the rest of the information in the supplemental files. The writing should be clear yet concise to maintain the flow of the section.  

We hope that by this point, you understand how crucial it is to write a thoughtful and precise methods section and the ins and outs of how to write the methods section of a research paper . To restate, the entire purpose of the methods section is to enable others to reproduce the results or verify the research. We sincerely hope that this post has cleared up any confusion and given you a fresh perspective on the methods section .

As a parting gift, we’re leaving you with a handy checklist that will help you understand how to write the methods section of a research paper . Feel free to download this checklist and use or share this with those who you think may benefit from it.  

References  

• Bhattacharya, D. How to write the Methods section of a research paper. Editage Insights, 2018. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-methods-section-of-a-research-paper (2018).
• Kallet, R. H. How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care 49, 1229–1232 (2004). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15447808/
• Grindstaff, T. L. & Saliba, S. A. AVOIDING MANUSCRIPT MISTAKES. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7, 518–524 (2012). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474299/

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

What is Confidence Interval and How to Calculate it (with Examples)

Coherence in Academic Writing: What It Is and How to Achieve This

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write Research Methodology

Last Updated: May 27, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Alexander Ruiz, M.Ed. and by wikiHow staff writer, Jennifer Mueller, JD . Alexander Ruiz is an Educational Consultant and the Educational Director of Link Educational Institute, a tutoring business based in Claremont, California that provides customizable educational plans, subject and test prep tutoring, and college application consulting. With over a decade and a half of experience in the education industry, Alexander coaches students to increase their self-awareness and emotional intelligence while achieving skills and the goal of achieving skills and higher education. He holds a BA in Psychology from Florida International University and an MA in Education from Georgia Southern University. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, several readers have written to tell us that this article was helpful to them, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 523,132 times.

The research methodology section of any academic research paper gives you the opportunity to convince your readers that your research is useful and will contribute to your field of study. An effective research methodology is grounded in your overall approach – whether qualitative or quantitative – and adequately describes the methods you used. Justify why you chose those methods over others, then explain how those methods will provide answers to your research questions. [1] X Research source

Describing Your Methods

• In your restatement, include any underlying assumptions that you're making or conditions that you're taking for granted. These assumptions will also inform the research methods you've chosen.
• Generally, state the variables you'll test and the other conditions you're controlling or assuming are equal.

• If you want to research and document measurable social trends, or evaluate the impact of a particular policy on various variables, use a quantitative approach focused on data collection and statistical analysis.
• If you want to evaluate people's views or understanding of a particular issue, choose a more qualitative approach.
• You can also combine the two. For example, you might look primarily at a measurable social trend, but also interview people and get their opinions on how that trend is affecting their lives.

• For example, if you conducted a survey, you would describe the questions included in the survey, where and how the survey was conducted (such as in person, online, over the phone), how many surveys were distributed, and how long your respondents had to complete the survey.
• Include enough detail that your study can be replicated by others in your field, even if they may not get the same results you did. [4] X Research source

• Qualitative research methods typically require more detailed explanation than quantitative methods.
• Basic investigative procedures don't need to be explained in detail. Generally, you can assume that your readers have a general understanding of common research methods that social scientists use, such as surveys or focus groups.

• For example, suppose you conducted a survey and used a couple of other research papers to help construct the questions on your survey. You would mention those as contributing sources.

Justifying Your Choice of Methods

• Describe study participants specifically, and list any inclusion or exclusion criteria you used when forming your group of participants.
• Justify the size of your sample, if applicable, and describe how this affects whether your study can be generalized to larger populations. For example, if you conducted a survey of 30 percent of the student population of a university, you could potentially apply those results to the student body as a whole, but maybe not to students at other universities.

• Reading other research papers is a good way to identify potential problems that commonly arise with various methods. State whether you actually encountered any of these common problems during your research.

• If you encountered any problems as you collected data, explain clearly the steps you took to minimize the effect that problem would have on your results.

• In some cases, this may be as simple as stating that while there were numerous studies using one method, there weren't any using your method, which caused a gap in understanding of the issue.
• For example, there may be multiple papers providing quantitative analysis of a particular social trend. However, none of these papers looked closely at how this trend was affecting the lives of people.

Connecting Your Methods to Your Research Goals

• Depending on your research questions, you may be mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis – just as you could potentially use both approaches. For example, you might do a statistical analysis, and then interpret those statistics through a particular theoretical lens.

• For example, suppose you're researching the effect of college education on family farms in rural America. While you could do interviews of college-educated people who grew up on a family farm, that would not give you a picture of the overall effect. A quantitative approach and statistical analysis would give you a bigger picture.

• If in answering your research questions, your findings have raised other questions that may require further research, state these briefly.
• You can also include here any limitations to your methods, or questions that weren't answered through your research.

• Generalization is more typically used in quantitative research. If you have a well-designed sample, you can statistically apply your results to the larger population your sample belongs to.

Template to Write Research Methodology

Community Q&A

• Organize your methodology section chronologically, starting with how you prepared to conduct your research methods, how you gathered data, and how you analyzed that data. [13] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Write your research methodology section in past tense, unless you're submitting the methodology section before the research described has been carried out. [14] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Discuss your plans in detail with your advisor or supervisor before committing to a particular methodology. They can help identify possible flaws in your study. [15] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://expertjournals.com/how-to-write-a-research-methodology-for-your-academic-article/
• ↑ http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/methodology
• ↑ https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/dissertation-methodology.html
• ↑ https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/05Chap%204_Research%20methodology%20and%20design.pdf
• ↑ https://elc.polyu.edu.hk/FYP/html/method.htm

About This Article

To write a research methodology, start with a section that outlines the problems or questions you'll be studying, including your hypotheses or whatever it is you're setting out to prove. Then, briefly explain why you chose to use either a qualitative or quantitative approach for your study. Next, go over when and where you conducted your research and what parameters you used to ensure you were objective. Finally, cite any sources you used to decide on the methodology for your research. To learn how to justify your choice of methods in your research methodology, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prof. Dr. Ahmed Askar

Apr 18, 2020

Did this article help you?

M. Mahmood Shah Khan

Mar 17, 2020

Shimola Makondo

Jul 20, 2019

Zain Sharif Mohammed Alnadhery

Jan 7, 2019

Lundi Dukashe

Feb 17, 2020

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

• Expert Journal of Finance
• Expert Journal of Economics
• Expert Journal of Marketing
• Expert Journal of Business and Management
• Send Your Article
• Google Plus

How to Write a Research Methodology for Your Academic Article

This article is part of an ongoing series on academic writing help of scholarly articles. Previous parts explored how to write an introduction for a research paper and a literature review outline and format .

The Methodology section portrays the reasoning for the application of certain techniques and methods in the context of the study.

For your academic article, when you describe and explain your chosen methods it is very important to correlate them to your research questions and/or hypotheses. The description of the methods used should include enough details so that the study can be replicated by other Researchers, or at least repeated in a similar situation or framework.

Every stage of your research needs to be explained and justified with clear information on why you chose those particular methods, and how they help you answer your research question or purpose.

As the Authors, in this section you get to explain the rationale of your article for other Researchers. You should focus on answering the following questions:

• How did you collect the data or how did you generate the data?
• Which research methods did you use?
• Why did you choose these methods and techniques?
• How did you use these methods for analyzing the research question or problem?

The responses to these questions should be clear and precise, and the answers should be written in past tense.

First off, let’s establish the differences between research methods and research methodology.

Research Methods and Research Methodology

As an Academic and Author of valuable research papers, it’s important not to confuse these two terms.

Research Methodology Definition

Research Methodology refers the discussion regarding the specific methods chosen and used in a research paper. This discussion also encompasses the theoretical concepts that further provide information about the methods selection and application.

In other words, you should highlight how these theoretical concepts are connected with these methods in a larger knowledge framework and explain their relevance in examining the purpose, problem and questions of your study. Thus, the discussion that forms your academic article’s research methodology also incorporates an extensive literature review about similar methods, used by other Authors to examine a certain research subject.

Research Method Definition

A Research Method represents the technical steps involved in conducting the research. Details about the methods focus on characterizing and defining them, but also explaining your chosen techniques, and providing a full account on the procedures used for selecting, collecting and analyzing the data.

Important Tips for a Good Methodology Section

The methodology section is very important for the credibility of your article and for a professional academic writing style.

Data Collection or Generation for Your Academic Article

Readers, academics and other researchers need to know how the information used in your academic article was collected. The research methods used for collecting or generating data will influence the discoveries and, by extension, how you will interpret them and explain their contribution to general knowledge.

The most basic methods for data collection are:

Secondary data

Secondary data are data that have been previously collected or gathered for other purposes than the aim of the academic article’s study. This type of data is already available, in different forms, from a variety of sources.

Secondary data collection could lead to Internal or External secondary data research.

Primary data

Primary data represent data originated for the specific purpose of the study, with its research questions. The methods vary on how Authors and Researchers conduct an experiment, survey or study, but, in general, it uses a particular scientific method.

Primary data collection could lead to Quantitative and Qualitative research.

Readers need to understand how the information was gathered or generated in a way that is consistent with research practices in a field of study . For instance, if you are using a multiple choice survey, the readers need to know which questionnaire items you have examined in your primary quantitative research. Similarly, if your academic article involves secondary data from FED or Eurostat it is important to mention the variables used in your study, their values, and their time-frame.

For primary research, that involve surveys, experiments or observations, for a valuable academic article, Authors should provide information about:

• Study participants or group participants,
• Inclusion or exclusion criteria

Selecting and Applying Research Methods

Establishing the main premises of methodology is pivotal for any research because a method or technique that is not reliable for a certain study context will lead to unreliable results, and the outcomes’ interpretation (and overall academic article) will not be valuable.

In most cases, there is a wide variety of methods and procedures that you can use to explore a research topic in your academic article. The methods section should fully explain the reasons for choosing a specific methodology or technique .

Also, it’s essential that you describe the specific research methods of data collection you are going to use , whether they are primary or secondary data collection.

For primary research methods, describe the surveys, interviews, observation methods, etc.

For secondary research methods, describe how the data was originally created, gathered and which institution created and published it.

Reasons for Choosing Specific Research Methods

For this aspect that characterizes a good research methodology, indicate how the research approach fits with the general study , considering the literature review outline and format , and the following sections.

The methods you choose should have a clear connection with the overall research approach and you need to explain the reasons for choosing the research techniques in your study, and how they help you towards understanding your study’s purpose.

Data Analysis Methods

This section should also focus on information on how you intend to analyze your results .

Describe how you plan and intend to achieve an accurate assessment of the hypotheses, relationships, patterns, trends, distributions associated with your data and research purpose.

The data type, how it was measured, and which statistical tests were conducted and performed, should be detailed and reported in an accurate manner.

For explaining the data analysis methods, you should aim to answer questions, such as:

• Will your research be based on statistical analysis?
• Will you use theoretical frameworks to help you (and your Readers) analyze a set of hypotheses or relationships?
• Which data analysis methods will you choose?
• Which other Authors or studies have used the same methods and should be cited in your academic article?

Issues to Avoid

There are certain aspects that you need to pay extra attention in relation to your research methodology section. The most common issues to avoid are:

• Irrelevant details and complicated background information that provides too information and does not provide accurate understanding for Readers
• Unnecessary description and explanations of basic or well-known procedures, for an academic audience who is already has a basin understanding of the study
• For unconventional research approaches, it is important to provide accurate details and explain why your innovative method contributes to general knowledge (save more details for your Discussion/ Conclusion section in which you can highlight your contributions)
• Research limitations and obstacles should be described in a separate section (Research Limitations)
• The methodology should include sources and references that support your choice of methods and procedures, compared to the literature review that provides a general outlook and framework for your study.

Which aspects are you generally focusing on when writing your academic article’s research methodology section?

You may also like, related policies and links, responsibilities of the publisher in the relationship with journal editors, general duties of publisher.

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 6. The Methodology

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study’s validity is judged. The method section answers two main questions: 1) How was the data collected or generated? 2) How was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and written in the past tense.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you choose affects the results and, by extension, how you likely interpreted those results.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and it misappropriates interpretations of findings .
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. Your methodology section of your paper should make clear the reasons why you chose a particular method or procedure .
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The research method must be appropriate to the objectives of the study . For example, be sure you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring . For any problems that did arise, you must describe the ways in which their impact was minimized or why these problems do not affect the findings in any way that impacts your interpretation of the data.
• Often in social science research, it is useful for other researchers to adapt or replicate your methodology. Therefore, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow others to use or replicate the study . This information is particularly important when a new method had been developed or an innovative use of an existing method has been utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article . Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The empirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences. This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation .
• The interpretative group is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . This research method allows you to recognize your connection to the subject under study. Because the interpretative group focuses more on subjective knowledge, it requires careful interpretation of variables.

II. Content

An effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods should have a clear connection with your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is unsuited to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors?
• Provide background and rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a rationale for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of statisics being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate.
• Address potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :  Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but to the point. Don’t provide any background information that doesn’t directly help the reader to understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how it was analyzed. Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. NOTE: An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional approach to doing the method; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall research process. Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose. Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics. Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship . S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

• << Previous: What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Academic Writing Style
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Academic writing refers to a style of expression that researchers use to define the intellectual boundaries of their disciplines and specific areas of expertise. Characteristics of academic writing include a formal tone, use of the third-person rather than first-person perspective (usually), a clear focus on the research problem under investigation, and precise word choice. Like specialist languages adopted in other professions, such as, law or medicine, academic writing is designed to convey agreed meaning about complex ideas or concepts within a community of scholarly experts and practitioners.

Academic Writing. Writing Center. Colorado Technical College; Hartley, James. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide . New York: Routledge, 2008; Ezza, El-Sadig Y. and Touria Drid. T eaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education . Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020.

Importance of Good Academic Writing

The accepted form of academic writing in the social sciences can vary considerable depending on the methodological framework and the intended audience. However, most college-level research papers require careful attention to the following stylistic elements:

I.  The Big Picture Unlike creative or journalistic writing, the overall structure of academic writing is formal and logical. It must be cohesive and possess a logically organized flow of ideas; this means that the various parts are connected to form a unified whole. There should be narrative links between sentences and paragraphs so that the reader is able to follow your argument. The introduction should include a description of how the rest of the paper is organized and all sources are properly cited throughout the paper.

II.  Tone The overall tone refers to the attitude conveyed in a piece of writing. Throughout your paper, it is important that you present the arguments of others fairly and with an appropriate narrative tone. When presenting a position or argument that you disagree with, describe this argument accurately and without loaded or biased language. In academic writing, the author is expected to investigate the research problem from an authoritative point of view. You should, therefore, state the strengths of your arguments confidently, using language that is neutral, not confrontational or dismissive.

III.  Diction Diction refers to the choice of words you use. Awareness of the words you use is important because words that have almost the same denotation [dictionary definition] can have very different connotations [implied meanings]. This is particularly true in academic writing because words and terminology can evolve a nuanced meaning that describes a particular idea, concept, or phenomenon derived from the epistemological culture of that discipline [e.g., the concept of rational choice in political science]. Therefore, use concrete words [not general] that convey a specific meaning. If this cannot be done without confusing the reader, then you need to explain what you mean within the context of how that word or phrase is used within a discipline.

IV.  Language The investigation of research problems in the social sciences is often complex and multi- dimensional . Therefore, it is important that you use unambiguous language. Well-structured paragraphs and clear topic sentences enable a reader to follow your line of thinking without difficulty. Your language should be concise, formal, and express precisely what you want it to mean. Do not use vague expressions that are not specific or precise enough for the reader to derive exact meaning ["they," "we," "people," "the organization," etc.], abbreviations like 'i.e.'  ["in other words"], 'e.g.' ["for example"], or 'a.k.a.' ["also known as"], and the use of unspecific determinate words ["super," "very," "incredible," "huge," etc.].

V.  Punctuation Scholars rely on precise words and language to establish the narrative tone of their work and, therefore, punctuation marks are used very deliberately. For example, exclamation points are rarely used to express a heightened tone because it can come across as unsophisticated or over-excited. Dashes should be limited to the insertion of an explanatory comment in a sentence, while hyphens should be limited to connecting prefixes to words [e.g., multi-disciplinary] or when forming compound phrases [e.g., commander-in-chief]. Finally, understand that semi-colons represent a pause that is longer than a comma, but shorter than a period in a sentence. In general, there are four grammatical uses of semi-colons: when a second clause expands or explains the first clause; to describe a sequence of actions or different aspects of the same topic; placed before clauses which begin with "nevertheless", "therefore", "even so," and "for instance”; and, to mark off a series of phrases or clauses which contain commas. If you are not confident about when to use semi-colons [and most of the time, they are not required for proper punctuation], rewrite using shorter sentences or revise the paragraph.

VI.  Academic Conventions Among the most important rules and principles of academic engagement of a writing is citing sources in the body of your paper and providing a list of references as either footnotes or endnotes. The academic convention of citing sources facilitates processes of intellectual discovery, critical thinking, and applying a deliberate method of navigating through the scholarly landscape by tracking how cited works are propagated by scholars over time . Aside from citing sources, other academic conventions to follow include the appropriate use of headings and subheadings, properly spelling out acronyms when first used in the text, avoiding slang or colloquial language, avoiding emotive language or unsupported declarative statements, avoiding contractions [e.g., isn't], and using first person and second person pronouns only when necessary.

VII.  Evidence-Based Reasoning Assignments often ask you to express your own point of view about the research problem. However, what is valued in academic writing is that statements are based on evidence-based reasoning. This refers to possessing a clear understanding of the pertinent body of knowledge and academic debates that exist within, and often external to, your discipline concerning the topic. You need to support your arguments with evidence from scholarly [i.e., academic or peer-reviewed] sources. It should be an objective stance presented as a logical argument; the quality of the evidence you cite will determine the strength of your argument. The objective is to convince the reader of the validity of your thoughts through a well-documented, coherent, and logically structured piece of writing. This is particularly important when proposing solutions to problems or delineating recommended courses of action.

VIII.  Thesis-Driven Academic writing is “thesis-driven,” meaning that the starting point is a particular perspective, idea, or position applied to the chosen topic of investigation, such as, establishing, proving, or disproving solutions to the questions applied to investigating the research problem. Note that a problem statement without the research questions does not qualify as academic writing because simply identifying the research problem does not establish for the reader how you will contribute to solving the problem, what aspects you believe are most critical, or suggest a method for gathering information or data to better understand the problem.

IX.  Complexity and Higher-Order Thinking Academic writing addresses complex issues that require higher-order thinking skills applied to understanding the research problem [e.g., critical, reflective, logical, and creative thinking as opposed to, for example, descriptive or prescriptive thinking]. Higher-order thinking skills include cognitive processes that are used to comprehend, solve problems, and express concepts or that describe abstract ideas that cannot be easily acted out, pointed to, or shown with images. Think of your writing this way: One of the most important attributes of a good teacher is the ability to explain complexity in a way that is understandable and relatable to the topic being presented during class. This is also one of the main functions of academic writing--examining and explaining the significance of complex ideas as clearly as possible.  As a writer, you must adopt the role of a good teacher by summarizing complex information into a well-organized synthesis of ideas, concepts, and recommendations that contribute to a better understanding of the research problem.

Academic Writing. Writing Center. Colorado Technical College; Hartley, James. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide . New York: Routledge, 2008; Murray, Rowena  and Sarah Moore. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach . New York: Open University Press, 2006; Johnson, Roy. Improve Your Writing Skills . Manchester, UK: Clifton Press, 1995; Nygaard, Lynn P. Writing for Scholars: A Practical Guide to Making Sense and Being Heard . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2015; Silvia, Paul J. How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007; Style, Diction, Tone, and Voice. Writing Center, Wheaton College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

Strategies for...

Understanding Academic Writing and Its Jargon

The very definition of research jargon is language specific to a particular community of practitioner-researchers . Therefore, in modern university life, jargon represents the specific language and meaning assigned to words and phrases specific to a discipline or area of study. For example, the idea of being rational may hold the same general meaning in both political science and psychology, but its application to understanding and explaining phenomena within the research domain of a each discipline may have subtle differences based upon how scholars in that discipline apply the concept to the theories and practice of their work.

Given this, it is important that specialist terminology [i.e., jargon] must be used accurately and applied under the appropriate conditions . Subject-specific dictionaries are the best places to confirm the meaning of terms within the context of a specific discipline. These can be found by either searching in the USC Libraries catalog by entering the disciplinary and the word dictionary [e.g., sociology and dictionary] or using a database such as Credo Reference [a curated collection of subject encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks, guides from highly regarded publishers] . It is appropriate for you to use specialist language within your field of study, but you should avoid using such language when writing for non-academic or general audiences.

Problems with Opaque Writing

A common criticism of scholars is that they can utilize needlessly complex syntax or overly expansive vocabulary that is impenetrable or not well-defined. When writing, avoid problems associated with opaque writing by keeping in mind the following:

1.   Excessive use of specialized terminology . Yes, it is appropriate for you to use specialist language and a formal style of expression in academic writing, but it does not mean using "big words" just for the sake of doing so. Overuse of complex or obscure words or writing complicated sentence constructions gives readers the impression that your paper is more about style than substance; it leads the reader to question if you really know what you are talking about. Focus on creating clear, concise, and elegant prose that minimizes reliance on specialized terminology.

2.   Inappropriate use of specialized terminology . Because you are dealing with concepts, research, and data within your discipline, you need to use the technical language appropriate to that area of study. However, nothing will undermine the validity of your study quicker than the inappropriate application of a term or concept. Avoid using terms whose meaning you are unsure of--do not just guess or assume! Consult the meaning of terms in specialized, discipline-specific dictionaries by searching the USC Libraries catalog or the Credo Reference database [see above].

Additional Problems to Avoid

In addition to understanding the use of specialized language, there are other aspects of academic writing in the social sciences that you should be aware of. These problems include:

• Personal nouns . Excessive use of personal nouns [e.g., I, me, you, us] may lead the reader to believe the study was overly subjective. These words can be interpreted as being used only to avoid presenting empirical evidence about the research problem. Limit the use of personal nouns to descriptions of things you actually did [e.g., "I interviewed ten teachers about classroom management techniques..."]. Note that personal nouns are generally found in the discussion section of a paper because this is where you as the author/researcher interpret and describe your work.
• Directives . Avoid directives that demand the reader to "do this" or "do that." Directives should be framed as evidence-based recommendations or goals leading to specific outcomes. Note that an exception to this can be found in various forms of action research that involve evidence-based advocacy for social justice or transformative change. Within this area of the social sciences, authors may offer directives for action in a declarative tone of urgency.
• Informal, conversational tone using slang and idioms . Academic writing relies on excellent grammar and precise word structure. Your narrative should not include regional dialects or slang terms because they can be open to interpretation. Your writing should be direct and concise using standard English.
• Wordiness. Focus on being concise, straightforward, and developing a narrative that does not have confusing language . By doing so, you  help eliminate the possibility of the reader misinterpreting the design and purpose of your study.
• Vague expressions (e.g., "they," "we," "people," "the company," "that area," etc.). Being concise in your writing also includes avoiding vague references to persons, places, or things. While proofreading your paper, be sure to look for and edit any vague or imprecise statements that lack context or specificity.
• Numbered lists and bulleted items . The use of bulleted items or lists should be used only if the narrative dictates a need for clarity. For example, it is fine to state, "The four main problems with hedge funds are:" and then list them as 1, 2, 3, 4. However, in academic writing, this must then be followed by detailed explanation and analysis of each item. Given this, the question you should ask yourself while proofreading is: why begin with a list in the first place rather than just starting with systematic analysis of each item arranged in separate paragraphs? Also, be careful using numbers because they can imply a ranked order of priority or importance. If none exists, use bullets and avoid checkmarks or other symbols.
• Descriptive writing . Describing a research problem is an important means of contextualizing a study. In fact, some description or background information may be needed because you can not assume the reader knows the key aspects of the topic. However, the content of your paper should focus on methodology, the analysis and interpretation of findings, and their implications as they apply to the research problem rather than background information and descriptions of tangential issues.
• Personal experience. Drawing upon personal experience [e.g., traveling abroad; caring for someone with Alzheimer's disease] can be an effective way of introducing the research problem or engaging your readers in understanding its significance. Use personal experience only as an example, though, because academic writing relies on evidence-based research. To do otherwise is simply story-telling.

NOTE:   Rules concerning excellent grammar and precise word structure do not apply when quoting someone.  A quote should be inserted in the text of your paper exactly as it was stated. If the quote is especially vague or hard to understand, consider paraphrasing it or using a different quote to convey the same meaning. Consider inserting the term "sic" in brackets after the quoted text to indicate that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, but the source had grammar, spelling, or other errors. The adverb sic informs the reader that the errors are not yours.

Academic Writing. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Academic Writing Style. First-Year Seminar Handbook. Mercer University; Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University; College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Murray, Rowena  and Sarah Moore. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach . New York: Open University Press, 2006; Johnson, Eileen S. “Action Research.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education . Edited by George W. Noblit and Joseph R. Neikirk. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020); Oppenheimer, Daniel M. "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly." Applied Cognitive Psychology 20 (2006): 139-156; Ezza, El-Sadig Y. and Touria Drid. T eaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education . Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020; Pernawan, Ari. Common Flaws in Students' Research Proposals. English Education Department. Yogyakarta State University; Style. College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Invention: Five Qualities of Good Writing. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Improving Academic Writing

To improve your academic writing skills, you should focus your efforts on three key areas: 1.   Clear Writing . The act of thinking about precedes the process of writing about. Good writers spend sufficient time distilling information and reviewing major points from the literature they have reviewed before creating their work. Writing detailed outlines can help you clearly organize your thoughts. Effective academic writing begins with solid planning, so manage your time carefully. 2.  Excellent Grammar . Needless to say, English grammar can be difficult and complex; even the best scholars take many years before they have a command of the major points of good grammar. Take the time to learn the major and minor points of good grammar. Spend time practicing writing and seek detailed feedback from professors. Take advantage of the Writing Center on campus if you need help. Proper punctuation and good proofreading skills can significantly improve academic writing [see sub-tab for proofreading you paper ].

Refer to these three basic resources to help your grammar and writing skills:

• A good writing reference book, such as, Strunk and White’s book, The Elements of Style or the St. Martin's Handbook ;
• A college-level dictionary, such as, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary ;
• The latest edition of Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form .

3.  Consistent Stylistic Approach . Whether your professor expresses a preference to use MLA, APA or the Chicago Manual of Style or not, choose one style manual and stick to it. Each of these style manuals provide rules on how to write out numbers, references, citations, footnotes, and lists. Consistent adherence to a style of writing helps with the narrative flow of your paper and improves its readability. Note that some disciplines require a particular style [e.g., education uses APA] so as you write more papers within your major, your familiarity with it will improve.

II. Evaluating Quality of Writing

A useful approach for evaluating the quality of your academic writing is to consider the following issues from the perspective of the reader. While proofreading your final draft, critically assess the following elements in your writing.

• It is shaped around one clear research problem, and it explains what that problem is from the outset.
• Your paper tells the reader why the problem is important and why people should know about it.
• You have accurately and thoroughly informed the reader what has already been published about this problem or others related to it and noted important gaps in the research.
• You have provided evidence to support your argument that the reader finds convincing.
• The paper includes a description of how and why particular evidence was collected and analyzed, and why specific theoretical arguments or concepts were used.
• The paper is made up of paragraphs, each containing only one controlling idea.
• You indicate how each section of the paper addresses the research problem.
• You have considered counter-arguments or counter-examples where they are relevant.
• Arguments, evidence, and their significance have been presented in the conclusion.
• Limitations of your research have been explained as evidence of the potential need for further study.
• The narrative flows in a clear, accurate, and well-organized way.

Boscoloa, Pietro, Barbara Arféb, and Mara Quarisaa. “Improving the Quality of Students' Academic Writing: An Intervention Study.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (August 2007): 419-438; Academic Writing. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Academic Writing Style. First-Year Seminar Handbook. Mercer University; Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University; Candlin, Christopher. Academic Writing Step-By-Step: A Research-based Approach . Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2016; College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Style . College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Invention: Five Qualities of Good Writing. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Writing Tip

Considering the Passive Voice in Academic Writing

In the English language, we are able to construct sentences in the following way: 1.  "The policies of Congress caused the economic crisis." 2.  "The economic crisis was caused by the policies of Congress."

The decision about which sentence to use is governed by whether you want to focus on “Congress” and what they did, or on “the economic crisis” and what caused it. This choice in focus is achieved with the use of either the active or the passive voice. When you want your readers to focus on the "doer" of an action, you can make the "doer"' the subject of the sentence and use the active form of the verb. When you want readers to focus on the person, place, or thing affected by the action, or the action itself, you can make the effect or the action the subject of the sentence by using the passive form of the verb.

Often in academic writing, scholars don't want to focus on who is doing an action, but on who is receiving or experiencing the consequences of that action. The passive voice is useful in academic writing because it allows writers to highlight the most important participants or events within sentences by placing them at the beginning of the sentence.

Use the passive voice when:

• You want to focus on the person, place, or thing affected by the action, or the action itself;
• It is not important who or what did the action;
• You want to be impersonal or more formal.

Form the passive voice by:

• Turning the object of the active sentence into the subject of the passive sentence.
• Changing the verb to a passive form by adding the appropriate form of the verb "to be" and the past participle of the main verb.

NOTE: Consult with your professor about using the passive voice before submitting your research paper. Some strongly discourage its use!

Active and Passive Voice. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Diefenbach, Paul. Future of Digital Media Syllabus. Drexel University; Passive Voice. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.  

• << Previous: 2. Preparing to Write
• Next: Applying Critical Thinking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

13 awesome academic phrases to write your methodology (+ real examples)

Writing a methodology can be painful but there are generally accepted and popular academic phrases that help you to convey your research design, methods, limitations and awareness of ethical challenges in a poignant and effective manner. Additionally examples are given to show you how academics do this in real publications.

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you make a purchase using the links below at  no additional cost to you.

Academic key phrases explaining the research design in a methodology

Academic key phrases describing research methods in a methodology, academic key phrases addressing limitations in a methodology, academic key phrases addressing ethical considerations in a methodology, the study follows a … design..

Example: “ The study follows a case study design, with group interviews with teachers. Observation in class, video recording and interviews with students form a backdrop of the main interview data. ” ( Bungum and Mogstad, 2022, p. 2 )

This study employs a … approach.

Example: “ This study investigates reasons for sport engagement among students and addresses the utilization of university sports programs (USP) by employing a mixed-methods approach. ” ( Farsani and Rahimi, 2022, p. 177 )

Following the guidelines for conducting…

Following the guidelines for conducting valid content analysis (Bengtsson, 2016; Elo & Kyngas, 2008; Kohlbacher, 2006; Krippendorff, 2012; Seuring & Müller, 2008), i.e. reading the papers several times to become familiar with the topic and to make sense of the data, we identified the definitions of resilience provided by the authors in the selected documents.  ( Conz and Magnani, 2020, p. 402 )

You may also like: 24 popular academic phrases to write your abstract (+ real examples)

The study is undertaken by means of…

Example: “The study is undertaken by means of interviews with teachers in the KreTek project…” ( Bungum and Mogstad, 2022, p. 3 )

Data were collected through…

Data were collected through online questionnaires sent via email. Respondents first filled out a general survey with background information, including demographics and segmentation preferences. ( Delanoeije et al., 2019, p. 1852 )

Hypotheses were tested through…

Example:  “ Hypotheses were tested through multilevel moderated mediation modeling using diary data collected during 14 consecutive workdays with 81 employees (N = 678 data points). ” ( Delanoeije et al., 2019, p. 1843 )

We assess… through using…

Example:  “ Exploiting bilateral data on asylum seeking applications for 157 countries over the period 2006–2015, we assess the determinants of refugee flows using a  gravity model  which accounts for endogenous selection in order to examine the causal link between climate, conflict and forced migration.”  ( Abel et al., 2019, p. 239 )

If you are looking to elevate your writing and editing skills, I highly recommend enrolling in the course “ Good with Words: Writing and Editing Specialization “, which is a 4 course series offered by the University of Michigan. This comprehensive program is conveniently available as an online course on Coursera, allowing you to learn at your own pace. Plus, upon successful completion, you’ll have the opportunity to earn a valuable certificate to showcase your newfound expertise!

One major drawback of this method…

Example: “ One major drawback of this method is the simultaneous generation of carbon dioxide .” ( Scheiblehner et al. 2023, p. 6233 )

The limitations of this study include…

Example: “ The limitations of this research include the limitation of the distance with the dangerous criteria, which according to the experts, if these distances are not observed, it will not be possible to accommodate the injured in times of crisis. ” ( Pakpahan and Augustine, 2019, p. 340 )

We acknowledge limitations in our research method…

Example: “ We acknowledge limitations in our research method but point nevertheless to its value in supporting a critical perspective and make suggestions for future research .” ( Eliwa et al., 2021, p. 1 )

There were several ethical risks and challenges…

Example: “ For our research there were several ethical risks and challenges, which demanded specific processes to be put in place: . The key ethical risk of working with students was that they could feel that their participation would have an impact on their learning or assessment on the module .” ( Hopfinger and Bissell, 2022, p. 40 )

Ethical approval was obtained by…

Example: “ Ethical approval was obtained by the National Research Ethics Service, London Committee – Camberwell St Giles (ref no 14/LO/0075). All participants provided written informed consent after receiving a complete description of the study and getting the opportunity to ask questions. ” ( Nath et al., 2020, p. 2 )

To ensure the soundness of the study, …

Example: “ To ensure the soundness of our study, hereafter, we provide some examples of our inductive content analysis process that led to the development of emerging categories and sub-categories presented in Table 1. “( Conz and Magnani, 2020, p. 402 )

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

17 strong academic phrases to write your literature review (+ real examples)

Chatgpt for academics ethical considerations of ai in research, related articles.

Energy management in academia

Asking for a recommendation letter from a PhD supervisor

Public speaking in academia and how to practice it

26 powerful academic phrases to write your introduction (+ real examples)

• Manuscript Preparation

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

• 4 minute read

Table of Contents

Highly influential research findings have several real-world implications that affect the public’s perception of individuals and communities to some extent. The way science is communicated shapes people’s behavior, interactions, and even related policies. As a result, in recent years there has been a growing recognition of the need to foster inclusive language within scholarly communication, which can help avoid bias or misunderstanding.  

Researchers, especially the younger generation, are becoming increasingly aware of the significance of using inclusive language in academic writing. This approach helps create a collaborative global academic landscape, while fostering respect for diverse perspectives. It is also conducive to the wide dissemination of papers and supports researchers in their long-term academic endeavors.  

This article will explain why and how to use inclusive language in your manuscript. Also, it will help researchers improve their ability to choose words with precision when writing by providing examples of appropriate inclusive terms. Let’s have a look!  

1. Referring to Persons with Disabilities¹  

When referring to someone with a disability, it is important to focus on the person first, not highlight their condition . Avoid using the terms “disabled person” or “handicapped person.” Instead, use person-first language, such as “a person with disability,” “a person with hearing loss,” etc.  

Additionally, when referring to individuals without disabilities, avoid using terms such as “normal” or “typical.” Instead, use phrases like “individuals without disabilities” or “people without disabilities.”  

Example of inclusive language : Students with disabilities often encounter distinct challenges in academic settings. These can range from physical barriers like inaccessible buildings to difficulties accessing educational materials in suitable formats. In contrast, students without disabilities typically navigate the educational environment with fewer hindrances.  

2. Using Gendered Nouns  

Gendered nouns such as “man” or words ending in “-man” can exclude certain groups, so it is best to avoid them² . Fortunately, they can be easily substituted with neutral terms . For instance, instead of writing “man”, write “person” or “individual” and instead of writing “mankind,” write “humanity” or “human beings.”  

When discussing people’s occupational roles, using neutral language is essential. For example, instead of writing “policeman,” write “police officer,” and instead of writing “chairman,” write “chairperson.”  

Example of gendered noun use:  The chairman oversees the company’s operations.  

Example of inclusive language:  The chairperson oversees the company’s operations.  

3. Using Pronouns  

When you know a person’s preferred pronoun, it is easy to incorporate it into writing. For example, most people use the pronouns he/him or she/her. However, using pronouns can become tricky in neutral or ambiguous contexts. In the past, it was common to use the  generic he   in these situations³ . However, it is best to avoid this practice as it can be exclusionary .  

Here are some tips to avoid the  generic he³ :  

Don’t only use he/his, add she/her  

For example, do not write:  An early career researcher needs mentors. He can learn the secrets to making an impact in academia with someone more experienced.  

Instead, write:  An early career researcher needs mentors. He or she can learn the secrets to making an impact in academia with someone more experienced.  

Eliminate the pronoun if possible  

For example, do not write:  We returned his manuscript two days after submission.  

Instead, write:  We returned the manuscript two days after submission.  

Use a plural term  

For example, do not write:  When an author revises his manuscript , he should consider the feedback provided by the peer reviewers.  

Instead, write:  When authors revise their manuscripts , they should consider the feedback provided by the peer reviewers.  

4. Describing Age  

As a general rule, refrain from mentioning a person’s age unless it is absolutely necessary for the context . In scientific writing, it is acceptable to use broad terms , such as infants, children, young adults, or older adults, to categorize age groups⁴ . This approach maintains inclusivity and respects individuals regardless of their age.   

Conclusion  

Embracing inclusive language in scholarly communication fosters a more welcoming environment for scholars from diverse backgrounds. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their life experiences, can equally benefit from advancements in science. It is worth noting that inclusive language constantly evolves with social development, which poses a great challenge for authors in terms of their English skills and the ability to pay attention to social trends.  

If you would like to achieve more efficient and inclusive expression in your papers, please choose Elsevier Language Services . Our professional editors, all native English speakers, with editing experience in more than 100 disciplines, can help you achieve professional, authentic, and inclusive academic expression in your papers, improve the chances of successful publication, and achieve long-term academic success.  

References:  

• University of Idaho Inclusive Writing Guide. (n.d.). https://www.uidaho.edu/brand/print-digital-content/inclusive-writing-guide  
• UNC-Chapel Hill Writing Center. (2023, December 8). Gender-Inclusive Language – The Writing Center. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/  
• Leu, P. (2020, July 2). Academic Writing: How do we use gender-inclusive language in academic writing? – Explorations in English Language Learning. Explorations in English Language Learning. https://englishexplorations.check.uni-hamburg.de/academic-writing-how-do-we-use-gender-inclusive-language-in-academic-writing/  
• Inclusive writing | York St John University. (n.d.). York St John University. https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/brand/our-writing-style/inclusive-writing/#age  

• Manuscript Review

Essential for High-Quality Paper Editing: Three Tips to Efficient Spellchecks

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

How to Write the First Draft of a Research Paper with Paperpal? 

Do you encounter writer’s block during the first draft of a research paper? Crafting a clear outline from your initial ideas and notes can feel like a daunting first hurdle. Many researchers and students struggle with the initial stages of research paper writing. Uncertainties about content structure, information selection, and weaving complex findings into a cohesive narrative can lead to staring at a blank page. 

Table of Contents

• AI-generated outlines with a personalized approach 
• Identify gaps to strengthen your research paper 
• Step 1: Creating a research paper outline  
• Step 2: Breaking down the outline into sections  
• Step 3: Drafting the research paper  

A glimpse into academic forums and social media gives a clear picture that many researchers across the world go through similar problems while writing the first draft of a research paper. Where to begin? What should I write? How to begin? How to compile 2-3+ years of research into a 2500 or 5000-word research paper? If you’re grappling with these concerns, do not worry. You’re not alone.   

Researchers face a mountain of work when it comes to writing papers. Paperpal decided to tackle this challenge and, in the process, discovered some fascinating writing habits: 

• Start verbally: Some researchers find their flow by talking through their ideas first. They record themselves or brainstorm with a friend, then use these spoken notes as a springboard for their draft. 
• Write on the go: Others prioritize keeping their thoughts flowing freely. They write in bursts, leaving the structuring and editing for later. 
• Divide and Conquer: For some, especially new researchers, a structured approach works best. They break the paper into sections, focusing on building each one in detail before assembling the final draft. 
• Outlines: Many researchers swear by outlines. Outlines provide a roadmap, complete with headings, subheadings, and key points. This saves time in the long run by eliminating the need for major restructuring later. You can focus on polishing the language and adding academic vocabulary during the final edit . 

Inspired by the outline method, Paperpal set out to create a tool that would give researchers a head start. This led to the development of Paperpal’s AI-generated outlines, which build a rough skeleton for your draft, allowing you to flesh out each section with confidence. 

How do Paperpal’s AI-generated outlines help you write the first draft 2x faster?   

Unlike traditional outlining methods, Paperpal doesn’t just provide a generic structure. Paperpal’s AI-generated outlines identify the key topics that form the backbone of your draft, providing a clear structure without sacrificing crucial elements. 

AI-generated outlines with a personalized approach

Paperpal goes beyond just suggesting topics. It seamlessly integrates your input, including notes, ideas, and research findings. This ensures the generated outline reflects your unique perspective and aligns perfectly with your project goals. This personalized approach not only streamlines the drafting process but also fosters a sense of ownership, keeping you engaged and motivated. 

Identify gaps to strengthen your research paper

After creating an outline based on your notes, Paperpal takes things a step further by helping you flesh out each section with content suggestions. Let’s say you’re working on the introduction of your research paper . Paperpal not only analyzes your notes to generate an outline, but it also identifies potential gaps in your research. It can then suggest content additions like knowledge gaps, research questions, and rationale statements to address those weaknesses. This comprehensive support streamlines the writing process for your first draft, making it smoother and more effortless. 

Researchers who have incorporated Paperpal into their workflow, have achieved higher levels of academic writing productivity . The result? Producing the first draft of a research paper in a shorter time frame, without making it completely AI-driven. 

How to write the first draft of a research paper with Paperpal?  

Paperpal redefines the way researchers approach academic writing, transforming the once-daunting task of drafting into a breeze. Here’s a walkthrough of writing the first draft of a research paper with Paperpal.  

Step 1: Creating a research paper outline

• Sign- up to Paperpal and open a new or existing document.  
• Navigate to Templates , select Outlines and choose Research Article to begin.  
• Fill out the necessary details in the required fields according to your needs. Add your research notes to the Brief Description section and click on Generate .  

Paperpal gets you started on the right foot by analyzing your information and generating a comprehensive outline. This roadmap for your draft breaks down the content into clear, logical sections: 

• Background: Sets the context for your research. 
• Topic Importance: Highlights the significance of your research area. 
• Existing Knowledge: Summarizes what’s already known about the topic. 
• Knowledge Gap: Identifies areas where further research is needed. 
• Rationale: Explains why your research is important to address the gap. 
• Research Question: Formulates the specific question your research aims to answer. 
• Aim/Objective: Defines the overall goals and desired outcomes of your research. 
• Hypothesis: Makes a prediction about the expected results of your study (optional, not all research papers require a hypothesis). 

Paperpal’s outline provides a head-start to structure and write your research paper. This process helps in laying a strong foundation for your writing and refining it effortlessly.  

Step 2: Breaking down the outline into sections

Once you have the initial outline, you can further refine it by dividing it into subsections. This helps you explore each aspect of your research in detail, ensuring thorough coverage of your topic. You can choose from pre-built sections like Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion and start developing one by one.  

Step 3: Drafting the research paper

Start your research paper’s draft based on the outline and custom section enhancements. During the writing phase, Paperpal also offers insights into using its features:   

• Incorporating references and additional content as required  
• Rephrasing, shortening sentences, and refining language and structure using Paperpal’s Edit and Rewrite options  
• Refining your draft by adding citations and specific information relevant to the topic via Paperpal Research. This ensures originality, and clarity, and adds value to your writing.  

By streamlining the journey from raw research to a polished draft, Paperpal helps students, researchers, and academics overcome common writing hurdles and achieve greater productivity. Whether you are a seasoned researcher or a student, Paperpal serves as a trusted companion, guiding you through each stage of the drafting process. Unlock academic writing potential with Paperpal. Get your free Paperpal account today!  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• 7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing Process
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

MLA Works Cited Page: Format, Template & Examples

You may also like, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples .

Advertisement

• Previous Article

Why Scholars Should Consider Policy Recommendations

Understanding the policymakers’ dilemma, how to begin developing policy recommendations, questions to ponder, yes, you can, writing policy recommendations for academic journals: a guide for the perplexed.

Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow in the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

Daniel Byman; Writing Policy Recommendations for Academic Journals: A Guide for the Perplexed. International Security 2024; 48 (4): 137–166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00485

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Academic research can inform decision-makers on what actions to take or to avoid to make the world safer, more peaceful, and more equitable. There are many good works on bridging the gap between policymakers and academics but few on how scholars writing in academic journals can influence the policy process. In contrast to most policy-focused research, academic journals have long shelf lives and provide space for scholars to present heavily researched empirical evidence, theories, and analyses. Long, well-researched articles can, over time, shape the broader narrative for how to think about complex issues. Scholars also tend to be more objective and less partisan than policymakers. Despite the potential importance of academic work to the policy debate, many scholars receive little training on why and how to make policy recommendations. To remedy this problem, steps are offered to guide scholars as they begin developing policy recommendations for their articles. These include recognizing the dilemmas that policymakers themselves face, considering the audience before starting to write, identifying and using policy option menus, among others. When crafting recommendations, scholars should consider the long-term implications of their research on current policy as well as recommendations that might lead to more effective approaches. At the same time, scholars should consider the costs and limits of their recommendations.

Climate change. The rise of China and the U.S. response. The dangers posed by ISIS and other terrorist groups. The ability of the United Nations, the IAEA, the NPT, and other institutions to manage nuclear proliferation. Civil unrest and the potential for peaceful change. Globalization's benefits and perils. These are among the most important security issues facing the world today—and they are issues that scholars can, and do, speak to regularly. Thomas Homer-Dixon's “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict,” John Mearsheimer's “The False Promise of International Institutions,” Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter's “The Strategies of Terrorism,” Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth's “Why Civil Resistance Works,” and Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman's “Weaponized Interdependence” are among the most-cited articles ever published in International Security , and their scholarly impact is considerable. 1 Beyond their theoretical contributions, these articles illustrate the potential that International Security and other academic journals have for speaking to policy issues. All of them contain important ideas proposing what decision-makers should consider, do, and not do to make the world a better place.

Despite the potential importance of academic work to the policy debate, new scholars receive little training on why and how to make policy recommendations. Some academic journals only pay lip service to policymaking or ignore it altogether. There are many insightful works on the gap between policymakers and academics and why it should be bridged, and a host of training workshops, government funding programs, and other efforts push in this direction, often with valuable results. 2 Other articles stress how to craft relevant recommendations in general. 3 Yet almost all these efforts focus on activities outside publishing in top academic journals, ignoring the important role that scholarly journals should play in shaping thinking on policy. This article seeks to fill this gap, advising contributors on how to write policy recommendations for articles in both International Security and, I hope, other high-quality academic publications that seek to inform the policy debate.

Providing helpful commentary on policy is challenging—as difficult as the academic research that leads to publication in a top journal—and it is doubly difficult when doing so for an academic journal. Publication time is measured in months or even years, in contrast to blogs and current affairs journals that offer more immediate turnaround. Policymakers rarely have time to read long articles, which are the staples of journals like International Security , and indeed “rarely have time to read what's not urgent in their inbox,” as one senior policymaker noted. 4 Perhaps most important, it is often difficult for academics to understand a policy, let alone the pressures that policymakers face and the conflicting objectives that they try to juggle.

Yet it is vital for scholars to learn the dilemmas that policymakers face and to be relevant to public and private policy debates so that their research can help make the world a better place. Engaging policy also makes for better research. By focusing on questions important to the policy world, scholars avoid the trap of scholasticism—that is, when they concentrate on internal debates rather than on the original problems that first inspired academic research. But writing serious policy recommendations requires considerable modesty: crafting effective policy is hard, and academics should recognize the limits of their findings and the difficulties of moving the policy needle.

When crafting recommendations, scholars should take advantage of their objectivity and ability to challenge the prevailing wisdom. They are also well-placed to use history to learn lessons and to draw insights from large datasets. Academic journals, for their part, endure: they have long shelf lives and allow deep dives, providing space for scholars to present heavily researched empirical evidence, theories, and analyses. Long, well-researched articles can, over time, shape the broader narrative for how to think about a complex issue such as the potentially peaceful nature of democracy or how to make deterrence more robust. 5 They may also help provide context when unexpected events occur and the policy community has little to draw on but theory and analogy.

As scholars begin crafting their articles, they should try to determine their policy audience—including leaders outside government in industry and civil society—to identify who might read their work and who might act on it. They should consider their variables, identifying ways to maximize better outcomes or minimize worse ones. To help academics think of ways to use their findings to influence policy, one strategy is to create or draw on existing menus of policy instruments (“What can diplomats do?” “How might financial tools assist with coercion or another goal?” and so on). At the same time, scholars should consider the costs and limits of their arguments, conveying enabling conditions and the level of certainty of their findings as well as their overall recommendations. Finally, they should use their academic journal work as a springboard for writing shorter pieces in policy journals, blogs, and opinion pages.

The remainder of this article has five sections. The first section explains why academic authors should speak to policy issues and why offering policy recommendations contributes to better scholarship. It also highlights the unique role of academic publications like International Security . The second section describes the dilemmas that policymakers themselves face—difficulties that scholars must recognize even if their ultimate advice criticizes or transcends these dilemmas. In section three, the heart of the article, I explain how an academic author might begin thinking about policy relevance. For some scholars, this process may involve identifying steps to take from the start of their research project. For others, it may involve considering how work undertaken with an academic audience in mind might also speak to policymakers. Section four poses a set of questions that scholars should consider as they craft their recommendations. It also illustrates how to apply the article's framework. The article concludes with a brief exhortation for scholars to engage the policy world in their academic research.

Policy-relevant scholarship is intended to produce findings that feature in the deliberations of government officials and others involved in policy decisions. This section makes three arguments. First, journals like International Security value policy relevance, as do most of the scholars who work on international security, and policy-relevant research can improve scholarship as well as inform policy. Second, academics have much to contribute to the broader policy debate. Third, academic journals have their own niche in the broader policy analysis ecosystem, complementing blogs, the opinion pages of major newspapers, and policy journals like Foreign Affairs .

the so what of the so what

Not every International Security article should be policy relevant, but most should. Scholarship seeks to expand human knowledge, but for international security, much of that knowledge is interwoven with policy challenges. 6 The vast majority of articles that appear in International Security speak to some aspect of policy, ranging from avoiding international and civil wars to improving alliances to the nature of the international system. 7

The editors of International Security consider the “so what” hurdle when they evaluate a submission—Why should a reader bother with your article when there are so many other ones to read instead? 8 This hurdle is much easier to clear if the author makes the policy connection unambiguous. If an article's central question matters to those responsible for waging war, preserving the peace, maintaining fiscal stability, improving governance, and otherwise trying to promote security, then that article—and its recommendations for avoiding dangerous outcomes and increasing the chances of positive ones—is worth considering for inclusion in a journal.

Aside from this important question regarding publication, many scholars seek to do relevant research. 9 It is likely that a policy question or world event piqued a scholar's interest in international relations. Many scholars believe (rightly!) that they can contribute to both internal government debates and broader, more public discussions of complex policy issues.

what scholars bring to the policy table

Scholars have much to offer the policy debate. Although scholars may be removed from the policymaking fray, that distance gives them a chance to present new ways of thinking about a problem and to take the long view. Unlike some policymakers, scholars are not driven by their inbox. This flexibility allows scholars to set long-term agendas. As the policy community celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, Graham Allison, Owen Cote, Richard Falkenrath, and Steven Miller presciently identified the threat of loose nuclear weapons and material from the former Soviet Union. Their evidence spurred policy attention and eventually action. 10

In the near term, scholars can challenge prevailing wisdoms. In 2002, John Mueller questioned the post-9/11 consensus that Al Qaeda would continue to conduct numerous mass-casualty attacks like 9/11 or even more destructive ones. As time went on, Mueller built on his research and proved his initial argument that 9/11 was an outlier for U.S. casualties. 11

Scholars have time to dig deep: research for an article can take many years, a luxury the policy community lacks. Scholars can also create large datasets and survey significant amounts of open-source material. Some of this analysis occurs within the intelligence community, but scholars often create better-designed datasets and have more time to read and digest publicly available material.

In addition, scholars are bureaucratically (though not politically) neutral. 12 They do not have a vested interest in whether the State Department or the Defense Department oversees a peacekeeping operation, for example. Policymakers often reason by analogy, whereas scholars are trained to thoroughly research particular cases in an unbiased way and draw conclusions across cases, both of which add more insight than using a simple analogy. 13 Perhaps most important, International Security and other leading journals publish rigorous, peer-reviewed articles that use precise and careful research methods and analyses to answer questions, challenge the conventional wisdom, validate empirical findings, and advance understanding about complex topics.

This reasoning may seem Pollyannaish, but imagine if scholars rejected policy contributions in their writing. There would be less work that is deeply informed, methodologically rigorous, and carefully reviewed. Daniel Drezner points out that many nonacademic public intellectuals are more partisan and less open to criticism than their academic counterparts. Such partisanship decreases the quality of public intellectuals’ work though not their influence. 14

More focus on policy can also lead to better scholarship. Making policy is difficult, and making good policy is even harder. By speaking to these challenges, scholars are forced to ask themselves knotty questions and to better understand what they study and the data on which they rely for their analyses. For example, an academic who engages policy seriously may recognize that the paper trail of memoranda and strategy documents is often more spin than substance. 15 With policy concerns in mind, scholars are less likely to emphasize elegant scholarship that elides real-world difficulties. As Rebecca Adler-Nissen argues, “Part of the reason why ‘bad ideas’ are allowed to develop in the first place is that we have established a hierarchy of prestige that values ‘clean’ and ‘elegant’ scholarly ideas over the ‘messy’ ones of practitioners.” 16 She adds that policy engagement forces scholars to “begin to develop ideas that acknowledge the complexities, paradoxes, and hidden politics of ‘policy.’ We become curious about what practitioners find appropriate, shameful, or important.” 17

Policy recommendations can be dangerous things. Policymakers might take them out of context to “prove” that their desired outcome is the best option. Work on the democratic peace, for example, was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But this justification overlooked important context: many findings that extol the benefits of the peace do not focus on forced regime change. 18 Paul Musgrave warns of “lab leaks” in political science, whereby magazines like the Atlantic and Foreign Policy present concepts with little context and fewer caveats, making them more likely to be misused. 19 Scholars may also fear being labeled as activists if they promote particular policies. They are also taught to avoid normative language—a luxury that policymakers do not share.

The cures for these potential ills, however, are not to avoid policy engagement but to take it more seriously. Scholars cannot control the conclusions that people draw from reading their work. But clear writing and speaking directly to policy concerns make it more difficult for others to misuse a scholar's ideas for their misguided policies. As Erica De Bruin argues, “If irresponsible public scholarship is the issue, then developing a more rigorous ethic of public engagement is vital.” 20 Similarly, activism is a good thing when it reduces the risk of war, improves human rights, and otherwise makes the world a better place. In addition, as Charli Carpenter points out, engaging with advocacy organizations often helps researchers overcome academic biases because it requires them to consider different issues and learn about new problems. 21 The key for scholars is to ensure that their work remains rigorous and objective, which at times means recognizing that their preferred approach has flaws and limits.

the unique role of academic journals in the policy debate

Academic journals like International Security are part of a vast ecosystem of outlets that all claim to speak to policy issues. These include foreign-policy-oriented long-form journals like Foreign Affairs and Survival , general media outlets such as the New York Times , Yomiuri Shimbun , and the Economist , podcasts like those featured at War on the Rocks , specialized outlets like Arms Control Wonk and Lawfare , and numerous others. As articles on policy relevance argue, scholars should publish in these outlets—and many do! These platforms publish articles more quickly than academic ones, enabling scholars to speak directly to the issues of the day.

Academic journals have their niche as well. In some cases, particularly when the danger is possible but not imminent (e.g., if China were to invade Taiwan), an academic journal might be an ideal outlet for in-depth work. Michael O'Hanlon wrote such a piece in 2000, and its findings remained relevant for years even as the international environment and China's military capabilities changed. 22 Scholars can try to provide general guidance on a more specific problem. A 2020 piece explaining the sources of Russian bellicosity, for example, would still be helpful to policymakers in 2022, though it would need to be updated with insights on the invasion of Ukraine.

The longer length of an academic article also has trade-offs. A typical International Security article has 10,000–15,000 words, and some are even longer. For Foreign Affairs , the recommended length is 2,000–5,000 words, and for the New York Times it is 800–1,200 words. 23 Shorter pieces are more likely to be read, especially by more senior policymakers with crammed schedules. Conversely, it is harder to go into depth in a short piece.

The flip side of a long review process and longer length is a long shelf life. 24 Articles for International Security deliberately speak to broader issues and long-term problems. Consequently, they may remain relevant for many years. Twenty years after publication, Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter's work on the strategies of terrorism still speaks to terrorist groups’ goals and methods. 25 Similarly, Caitlin Talmadge's focused study on Iran's possible blocking of the Strait of Hormuz remains highly relevant almost fifteen years later, identifying the many challenges to Iran, the possible responses for the United States, and so on. 26 Additional scholarly work, technological advances, and geopolitical change may affect the issues discussed in both articles, but the authors provide a set of concepts that create a valuable foundation on which to build policy.

In addition, the long shelf life changes the readership and value of the piece, allowing scholars to shape worldviews that inform a host of decisions. An International Security article may be on a syllabus for years or even decades after publication, framing how an issue is thought of for years to come, as RAND research on nuclear strategy did in the 1950s and 1960s. 27 It is plausible that a twenty-year-old student who reads an academic piece may retain its concepts and arguments as a mid-level policymaker two decades later. In the words of John Maynard Keynes, “practical men, who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” 28 Be that defunct economist.

Journals like International Security are also more open to historical deep dives and reinterpretations. Because analogical reasoning is so prevalent, changing an understanding of an important historical event, such as the outbreak of World War I or the Cuban missile crisis, can inform how to think about what to do in the present. Keir Lieber points out that historians and policymakers like Henry Kissinger misunderstood World War I as an inadvertent conflict. This misreading has profound implications for how to gauge the likelihood of small great power disagreements accidentally spiraling into major war. 29

In some cases, rare ones but with high impact, a discontinuous event takes an article off the shelf. Should China invade Taiwan in 2025, an in-depth piece written in 2020 in a journal like International Security might be among the most comprehensive external guides to a policy challenge that would consume world attention, even if it does not discuss this specific crisis. Naazneen Barma and James Goldgeier note that Swedish Nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal's The American Dilemma , a masterful 1944 study of race in the United States, was largely ignored when published, and its sponsors disowned it for years. In 1956, however, its findings helped shape the Brown v. Board of Education decision, one of the most consequential Supreme Court rulings in U.S. history. 30

Because academic articles are often explicitly theoretical, they also offer insights into new or related but distinct situations. For example, the 2011 Arab Spring upended long-standing policies toward area regimes. Even though pre-2011 articles on democratic transitions, the impact of military coup-proofing, civil war resolution, and similar topics that are common in security-related academic journals do not necessarily focus on the conditions in Egypt, Tunisia, or other affected countries, they nevertheless offered many potential insights during the turbulence. 31 Policymakers might have learned ways to promote successful elections, avoid (or predict) coups, prepare for civil violence, and so on. The key concepts endure, even if the dates and places are different.

Bureaucracies often amass considerable knowledge on complex issues, and policymakers are rarely stupid. Yet many policies seem foolish and ill-informed, especially in hindsight. To understand why the policy outcome often differs from the ideal, it is vital to understand the many pressures and restrictions that policymakers face. Academics should not treat these difficulties as immutable or even excusable, but recommendations should reflect an understanding of the policy itself and how to improve outcomes. Identifying the actual policy is a difficult aspect of research that should accompany the broader academic research process. Perhaps most important, academics should approach policy influence with considerable humility: in providing advice to smart, knowledgeable people, often the academic is not aware of all, or even most, of the challenges confronting the policy community.

policy constraints

Policymakers make their own policies, but they do not make them just as they please. Some factors, such as geography or the polarity of the international system, are invariable. Although many elements that constrain decision-making and agency are malleable, these constraints are often tight, making it hard for policymakers to break out of a narrow set of options.

Policymakers are beholden to their publics and to elites. These limits apply in both democratic and authoritarian systems, albeit in different ways and to different degrees. 32 It is tempting to urge “leadership” as a recommendation, and at times policymakers do go against the preferences of their constituents and supporters. But leaders are understandably wary of jeopardizing their political status.

Competing priorities and limited resources also constrain policymakers. The many issues that scholars examine—civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa, refugee flows in Southeast Asia, the destabilizing effects of new weapons systems, and problems with security assistance, to name only a few—compete with one another and with numerous other concerns. For the most senior policymakers, they also compete with domestic priorities, which are usually more salient. Recommendations that call for more aid to a region, more training to an ally's military, and so on all come at a cost, with other priorities receiving less money and attention as a result.

Policymakers also must act with only limited information. Colin Powell recalled that if he waited for enough facts to be 100 percent right, it meant it was too late to act. 33 Although U.S. intelligence proved remarkably prescient about the likelihood of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Joe Biden administration did not know if Ukrainian forces would hold out, how key allies in Europe would respond, or how a then-unpopular leader like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would respond when greatness was thrust upon him. 34 Policymakers also had to worry about less probable but potentially catastrophic concerns like nuclear escalation. Recommendations must recognize the many uncertainties and scenarios that policymakers are likely to face after a terrorist attack, as a civil war is breaking out, or when a peaceful movement seeks to overthrow a dictatorial regime.

In short, policymakers are in a proverbial box, constrained by politics, resources, competing priorities, and limited information. For academics to think outside this box, they must understand why policymakers are in it, which parameters are possible to shift, and which are likely to hold firm.

the difficulties of understanding policy

Understanding policy takes time, and it is easy to get wrong or caricature. First, policies often embody multiple strategic, bureaucratic, and political interests. Second, an administration may provide conflicting or confusing signals as to what its true policy is. Third, the resulting complexity makes coding difficult. Fourth, policies are often bad because alternative policies are worse; criticism should recognize this reality.

One barrier to understanding policy is that a single issue may be interwoven with a wide array of interests. Take, for example, negotiations with Iran as embodied in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In this instance, U.S. policymakers balance a range of goals, including: stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program altogether; pausing the program for several years; shoring up international regimes like the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); leading allies in Europe and elsewhere that also oppose Iran's nuclear program but are more eager for commercial ties to Tehran; reassuring regional allies that are suspicious of Iran; condemning Iran's support for militant and terrorist groups in the greater Middle East; supporting Iranian demonstrators seeking regime change; and winning over a domestic population that is highly suspicious of any relationship perceived as forgiving to Iran. 35 Judging success is difficult, as some of these goals are incompatible. Policymakers maximize some interests, satisfice others, and “fail” on still others. 36 A recommendation that improves the odds for success in one area may hinder it in others. For example, the Barack Obama administration succeeded in nuclear negotiations with Iran in part because U.S. policymakers avoided entangling the nuclear discussions with demands regarding Iran's support for terrorist groups.

Multiple signals from an administration make determining the actual policy difficult. Governments issue public strategy documents but engage in private and even covert diplomacy that can be more consequential. Diplomats may join treaty negotiations but have private instructions to ensure that negotiations fail. Officials use public statements not only to delineate a policy but also to close off rival approaches. For example, an administration publicly condemning the assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi on one day would find it more difficult to sell Riyadh weapons the next. At times, the public statement is virtue signaling, staking the moral high ground even as most administration policies either do not follow through on lofty goals such as promoting human rights or opposing aggression or even go in the opposite direction. Western leaders, for example, called for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's ouster but did not provide the Syrian opposition with sufficient military support to make it happen. 37 Was regime change truly their goal?

The many interests involved in policy decisions, the multiplicity of signals coming out of governments, and the possibility of virtue signaling all pose coding problems. It is challenging for scholars to determine success or failure or to assign values to other binary measures of policy that are often used in large datasets. Similarly, the signaling confusion makes it hard to for researchers to know which coding they should use.

For academics, the many interests and confusing signaling also pose a data problem. Official strategy documents can be great sources, but they can also be misleading. President Donald Trump's 2017 National Security Strategy seemed to bear little relationship to his administration's overall foreign policy. Indeed, in some ways actual policy contradicted the guidance, with the strategy embracing a strong role for U.S. leadership in the face of great power competition when President Trump was highly critical of traditional U.S. allies and was cozying up to Moscow. 38 Often deliberations occur in private before a formal meeting. The meeting record is thus a ratification, not a reflection of discourse. Understandably, scholars often have a bias toward the written word, whereas it is the briefing or private conversation that matters the most to many policymakers. Some written policy documents may accurately reflect the authors’ views. But policymakers are less likely to document their political and bureaucratic interests, which leads scholars to have a bias toward strategic explanations.

Indeed, almost every policy addressing a complex problem is insufficient and often the only alternatives are bad ones—so which bad one is the best? As David Baldwin notes in his assessment of economic sanctions, “If the menu of choice includes only the options of sinking or swimming, the observation that swimming is a ‘notoriously poor’ way to get from one place to another is not very helpful. And if the principal alternative to economic sanctions is appearing to condone communism, racism, terrorism, or genocide, the observation that they are a ‘notoriously poor tool of statecraft’ may miss the point. In the context of the logic of choice, the evaluation of one policy alternative in isolation from others makes little sense.” 39 Policymakers may have an ambitious declared goal (“stopping human rights abuses”), but in practice they may settle for a range of lesser achievements, such as slightly reducing human rights abuses by making it more difficult for a regime to access resources, signaling disapproval to gain allied support, avoiding pressure to use military force that may backfire, and so on. Recommendations that do not at least acknowledge the poor range of options available to policymakers will not be convincing.

Taylor Fravel and Charles Glaser's work on the South China Sea and U.S. policy is an excellent example of how scholars can avoid these traps. 40 Fravel and Glaser are careful not to caricature current policy as they describe alternatives such as greater retrenchment and more intense military resistance. They detail the conditions under which different alternatives might be appropriate and suggest specific policies to accompany the alternatives, such as clarifying ambiguous treaty arrangements, imposing substantial economic sanctions, implementing shaming measures when China violates norms, and deploying surface and air forces, among many others. Overall, the reader is left with a better understanding of the balance that current U.S. policy is trying to strike, which Chinese actions would suggest the policy is failing, and the many potential downsides of different approaches, particularly how more aggressive efforts risk unwanted escalation.

the need to transcend the dilemma

Scholars must understand the policymakers’ dilemma and factor it into their recommendations, but they should not be bound by it. Pointing out the weakness of a policy in addressing a problem is an important service, and strong arguments can help policymakers advocate for more resources, shift priorities, or even take political risks in the face of domestic and elite opinion. Even better, however, is offering a plausible alternative. A particularly important role for scholars is to help policymakers reconsider factors that the policy community sees as insurmountable rather than malleable, such as identifying ways to overcome long-standing animosities, to reshape public support, to reprioritize regional objectives, and so on.

Scholars are taught to dissect complex problems, but often they focus on a lacuna in the literature rather than the policy implications of their research findings. 41 If they focus more on the advantages of a particular method or on why a variant of one major paradigm is better than another, such elements by themselves are of little interest to the policymaker. Below I both offer advice for authors as they begin to craft a piece designed to increase policy influence and list factors to consider as their research progresses. Some of these steps may prove useful even if the scholar sees the research as primarily academic.

step one: help a policymaker solve a problem

For those interested in speaking directly to policymakers as well as academics, start with the “so what” that motivated the research in the first place to determine how it fits into the policy world. What factors shape current policies, how malleable are they, and what alternatives are on the table? What will policymakers learn from reading the article that may improve their understanding about the problems they face and that may offer potential solutions? The article's focus should help solve a problem that is in a policymaker's inbox or, just as important, should be in their inbox. As the then deputy secretary of state James Steinberg noted, policymakers are “desperate” for ideas and solutions. 42

step two: consider, realistically, the audience

Before scholars begin their research, they should examine the issues that different kinds of policymakers or policy influencers see as important. Make sure to include those topics in the essay in a way that their audience can recognize, understand, and appreciate. Some policymakers write strategic documents, others evaluate weapons systems, still others negotiate treaties, and so on. Sometimes scholars decide that their work will have the greatest impact if they inform the media. The research findings should help reporters enlighten the public and ask nuanced and informed questions of government officials. Likewise, if the research will have the greatest impact by shaping the thinking of undergraduates and masters’ candidates—the next generation of policymakers—consider how to structure the whole essay, and possibly the research more broadly, to be most useful and effective for that audience.

With the issue in mind, identify the target policy audience. For those writing on a common topic like alliances and war, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries’ ministries of defense and foreign affairs, the leaders of Asian democracies, and intelligence chiefs are some (ambitious) possibilities. But authors should think broadly, beyond just governments, even if their piece is focused on traditional interstate security issues. For example, social media companies have emerged as important players in the information realm. With three billion monthly active users, Facebook's decisions on who to allow on its platform and what can be discussed are often more consequential than various foreign ministries’ statements. Companies’ content moderation policies and crisis response protocols, or lack thereof, can hinder or enable genocide. 43 Schools can teach new subjects (or old subjects differently), affecting reconciliation between once-embittered communities and public attitudes toward age-old problems like the impact of discrimination. Civil society and advocacy organizations such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines can shift discourse, rally domestic coalitions (remember the box and how domestic politics shapes it!), and advance international law. Also consider where on the policy food chain your audience is. The U.S. president can change things more quickly than the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, and the assistant secretary has more power than a desk officer. But guess which one has more time to read your article?

Authors who want to speak directly to policymakers should think of ways to infuse their entire project—puzzle, theoretical approach, hypothesis testing, and presentation of findings—with answers to both scholarly and policy questions. In addition to presenting rigorous methods and building on existing literatures, an article's theoretical and hypothesis sections must also make sense to a curious policymaker. Why is comparing many states’ approaches to military training better than delving deep into one example (or vice versa)? Why present some explanations but not others? A policymaker working on this issue should nod her head as she goes along rather than wonder why vital, obvious details that are necessary to make progress on a problem are missing from an article's analysis.

step three: emphasize useful variables and proper linkages

Scholars can also emphasize certain variables in their analyses to identify ways that policymakers can achieve the best results. If civil wars are correlated with ethnic disputes, economic inequality, or poor governance, then policies that foster ethnic harmony, greater equality, and reduced corruption should be encouraged. Policymakers would eagerly listen to scholars who provide specifics on what has worked. Articles that focus on methods can also be useful to policymakers, though drawing policy insights from such works often requires a bit more effort. Nicolas Sambanis, for example, argues that changes to both the threshold of violence used to define a civil war and the coding of intrastate, interstate, and extrastate wars can dramatically alter findings regarding peace duration and the causal power of economic problems, among many others. 44 If articles that draw on such findings are not robust, as Sambanis's research suggests, then policy recommendations built on them should be reconsidered.

Some scholars may prefer to skip the above steps and instead focus on the article's contributions to the academic literature. If they do so, however, they can still write useful policy recommendations. Having read a scholar's research, the intended current or future policymaker may be more informed about the causes of war, why alliances fracture, barriers to ethnic reconciliation, and other grave problems and perhaps better equipped to reduce these dangers. The author should now ask, “Given the findings from my research, what makes desirable policy outcomes more likely?” This might involve pointing out tensions between different policy approaches. Lindsey O'Rourke, for example, finds that policymakers prefer covert regime change over overt measures because they can deny responsibility for failures and reduce criticism for meddling in general. Efforts to ensure deniability, however, make the operations less likely to succeed. Highlighting this trade-off between two competing benefits (deniability versus improved chances of success) is important and increases the article's utility to policymakers. 45 This step tends to be easier if scholars have designed their work with policy concerns in mind from the start. Even so, articles that are more academic facing may still make desirable policy outcomes more likely.

Scholars’ recommendations should flow from their analyses. Such a point seems straightforward, even obvious. But often policy recommendations stray from the analytic foundations on which they claim to rest. For example, the 9/11 Commission issued a powerful report condemning intelligence failures and calling for major structural reforms, particularly to centralize intelligence under a director of national intelligence. 46 As Richard Posner pointed out, however, among intelligence agencies it was only the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that demonstrated major structural failures in combating terrorism. 47 The 9/11 Commission nevertheless recommended major institutional changes elsewhere in the intelligence community but not in the FBI. Although the report indicated that post-9/11 information sharing worked well and that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary operations were effective and agile, it recommended centralizing information sharing and moving the CIA's operations under the Defense Department. To be clear, such recommendations may have been good ones, but they did not match the substance of the commission's findings on information sharing or paramilitary operations.

Finally, avoid offering hackneyed recommendations. A recommendation that urges policymakers to focus on economic growth may be vacuous. A call for more intelligence may be hard to enact. Instead, provide thoughts on why intelligence is currently lacking. 48

step four: create a menu of policy options

Depending on the research topic, there are many practicable ways to influence policy. It is useful to consider all options, even if most do not end up being relevant to your findings. The U.S. military teaches its students that the instruments of power are summarized by the acronym DIME (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic)—and that is one place to start. 49 What might a diplomat do to sail the ship of state in the right direction? Is more intelligence needed? If so, could government education or propaganda campaigns help? What about the many variations of military force? Do economic tools such as sanctions help? Sometimes the answer to such questions is a clear and quick “no.” But combining these tools can often move policy forward. There are numerous variations of DIME, such as MIDFIELD (military, informational, diplomatic, financial, intelligence, economic, law, and development), which brings in financial and economic tools, international and domestic law, and so on. 50 In other cases, changes to education policy might be appropriate. Regardless of the preferred abbreviation, if any, thinking through a list of tools is a useful way to start.

Combinations are particularly important. Policymakers rarely rely on one instrument, and saying that such an instrument succeeds or fails, by itself, is less persuasive than discussing combinations.

Another approach is to think of a checklist for policymakers. Alexander George's writing on coercive diplomacy, for example, offers both contingent generalizations on when it works and factors for policymakers to think through. In essence, George shows how structured, focused comparisons of past cases help policymakers assess what they need to know and do for current developments. 51

step five: consider costs and limits of your policy recommendations

Some policy recommendations may be highly effective but also involve high costs in lives or money. Others help solve one problem but introduce others. Considering the findings, what current policies are making things worse or simply wasting money? Similarly, what costs and trade-offs are likely if a policymaker implements the article's recommendations? In general, it is always useful to ask, “Why is this not being done already?”

The findings that promoting regime change in Iran would lead to many casualties and would foster anti-Americanism would be useful to share with policymakers. Yet a recommendation to avoid foreign intervention might mean accepting a hostile, nuclear-armed Iran. It is easier for policymakers to dismiss research that fails to consider the latter possibility. Other policies are just expensive. Asking Asian countries to respond to China's rise by vastly increasing their anti-access/area denial capabilities may be sensible, but doing so is costly. Political leaders have other uses for the money.

By contrast, examining the cost of existing policies can generate new recommendations. For example, Kenneth Pollack finds that U.S. efforts to train Arab militaries using a U.S. military model is a recipe for failure given different political, cultural, and institutional settings. This seems like a finding that would lead to a recommendation to stop training altogether. Even though ineffective training is often useless in a military sense, stopping it would anger allied elites and harm bilateral relationships. Pollack thus recommends that the United States shift how it trains foreign militaries to better recognize these differences. 52

With the above in mind, make recommendations that are distinctive and clear. In her work on military training, Renanah Miles Joyce contends, “Liberal providers should emphasize building institutions that help to regulate military behavior rather than prioritizing individual or unit-level training with a normative component tacked on.” 53 This sentence packs a lot of substance: it identifies the actors (liberal states that provide military assistance), the policy that needs to change (prioritizing individual and unit-level training), and the proposed alternative (building institutions).

Another approach is to think about the policy box and where you stand in relation to it. It is tempting for scholars to ignore politics and simply point out the best answers. Yet recommendations that incorporate political realities are potentially more influential. Often, a mix is best. A scholar might note that today's political reality makes the ideal policy infeasible. Instead, the author might recommend a suboptimal but still useful set of steps: “As long as U.S. domestic politics makes a return to the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] difficult, a less effective but valuable step would be to engage in a series of bilateral trade agreements that, cumulatively, offer lesser but still important security benefits similar to TPP.” This recommendation acknowledges the preferred solution (TPP) and offers a more politically plausible middle ground (bilateral agreements) that a policymaker could consider. Similarly, it is important to acknowledge resource constraints but not be bound by them: “Ideally, Taiwan would purchase a suite of anti-access/area denial capabilities rather than rely on more traditional systems like tanks, and it should begin with Harpoon anti-ship missiles.” 54

step six: use research as a springboard for other outputs

After conducting exhaustive research and developing informed recommendations, a scholar can repackage their research for podcasts and as shorter pieces for magazines like Foreign Affairs , outlets like Lawfare , and newspapers. These shorter pieces come to the attention of policymakers at multiple levels and make it more likely that at least a few of them may engage the longer work. After Keir Lieber and Daryl Press published their deeply researched findings on challenges to nuclear deterrence in International Security , they reached broader audiences by sharing their results in Foreign Affairs and the Atlantic . 55

Believe it or not, many editors welcome pitches from informed, serious scholars, even if the scholars have not previously written for popular publications. Most outlets have information on where and how to submit on their websites. Emailing editors directly is also an option. 56 In many cases, busy editors will not respond to inquiries or will otherwise not give a pitch the time it deserves. So be it. Curse to yourself, move on, and submit elsewhere, repeating as necessary. After initial contact is made, subsequent submissions are often easier, especially if an author proves to be authoritative, responsive, and otherwise easy to work with. I edit the “Foreign Policy Essay” at Lawfare and regularly feature content that draws on long academic articles. A simple email to me usually leads to a response—the author and I discuss if a piece might be suitable and, if so, how it might draw on the original research but reach a different, policy-focused audience.

After following some form of steps one through six, there are several important questions that scholars should pose to themselves as they draft policy recommendations for their articles. These questions have no right answers—but considering them will help properly situate the research in ways that policymakers find useful.

It is fine to think big, and it is also fine to think small—each category has different audiences and different impacts. Mid- or senior-level officials are more likely to act on smaller, more fine-grained recommendations. They can use their bureaucratic power to advocate purchasing a particular weapons system, strengthening an international organization, or using financial tools instead of military force to coerce an adversary. They cannot, however, easily establish a new norm on a controversial topic, jettison the 1947 National Security Act, or dump a long-standing ally in favor of a new one. Yet such broad recommendations, even if infeasible in the short or medium term, are part of what academics contribute to a debate. By changing public and elite perceptions over time, scholars can give policymakers more agency to overhaul their approach, thereby loosening the constraints of the policy box. Another factor to consider is the timing of a recommendation. For example, proposing that the European Union change its aid recipients as the deadline for doing so approaches might be more influential than making that same recommendation months or years after the deadline has passed.

do the recommendations solve the problem or move the needle?

A related question is whether a recommendation focuses on either solving or mitigating a problem. The former, obviously, is better, but in most cases it is unrealistic. If scholars have solutions for how to finally end civil wars, reconcile embittered ethnic groups, or ensure that nuclear war is an impossibility, then they should propose them! Yet small improvements in dangerous situations are tremendously valuable. Recommendations that make a civil war a little less likely, reduce the odds of a counterproductive intervention, or minimize wasted time or resources have measurable consequences. Offering a recommendation that reduces the number of refugees from one million to 950,000 is less consequential than preventing the disaster that created one million refugees. But it is still monumental to have fifty thousand fewer refugees, even if the reduction seems insufficient to the scale of the suffering. Most scholarship at best slightly shifts policy, and academics should be comfortable, indeed proud, that it does so. Academic authors should recognize that sometimes only limited progress is possible given resources, the limits of policy instruments, and political realities.

conveying uncertainty

Policymakers and government analysts are often wrong. And so are academics. A powerful advantage of academics, however, is (or should be) that mistakes are learning opportunities. Scholars can revisit foreign policy decisions and, by understanding why people were wrong, identify neglected variables or scope conditions. This power, however, comes with responsibility. Just as methods and sources have inevitable limits and gaps, so do policy recommendations. Small variations in findings—“sanctions always fail” versus “sanctions usually fail”—have profound policy implications, and those variations should be made clear. In addition, scholars should reevaluate their work and highlight their mistakes as ways to ensure their integrity. 57 Scholars can and will be wrong, and refusing to acknowledge this by making excuses or otherwise avoiding responsibility misses a learning opportunity and reduces the scholar's credibility. In conveying uncertainty, scholars should strike a balance between showing humility by acknowledging research limitations and offering policymakers clear advice despite unknown or conflicting variables.

are you writing implications or recommendations?

Although this article focuses on policy recommendations, an important (and at times easier) variant is to consider policy implications: How do research findings inform existing policies? This differs from a recommendation, which asks: “What should policymakers do differently in light of the research findings?” Consider this statement: “There is no need to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because it is unlikely to use them.” If policymakers are convinced by the argument, they might abandon efforts to coerce Iran or otherwise dramatically change their approach. Another variant is to warn of possible problems with a current approach: “Efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons will face challenges from Iran's insecurity about its own defense capabilities, from the different interests of Iran's trading partners, and from a distrust of U.S. credibility following the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under President Trump.” This latter example offers no new policy but warns current policymakers about potential obstacles to success. Presumably, policymakers could try to mitigate these constraints, such as by providing side payments to trading partners, but the author is not making a specific recommendation.

By contrast, consider an approach that focuses on recommendations: “To stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States and its allies should focus less on military pressure and more on tightening economic sanctions.” Ideally, a scholar would provide examples for how to do such tightening. When in doubt, it is better to be direct than to let others draw their own conclusions.

Pointing out both policy recommendations and policy implications is valuable for the reasons discussed above. Policymaking is difficult, and solutions are not always obvious. Relatedly, sometimes a particular recommendation is uncomfortable (e.g., don't do humanitarian intervention or otherwise help a vulnerable population). This discomfort does not mean that scholars should avoid highlighting unpopular policy implications. Ideally, scholars would embrace this role as they are less likely than someone in government to suffer career harm from an unpopular position.

Table 1 presents five International Security articles that were published in the last five years. These examples highlight a wide range of topics that might matter to policymakers. 58 Some focus on a clear policy issue like civil-military relations or on an instrument like military training. Others seem more abstract, examining the nature of the international system or hostile uses of water. The authors represent a mix of both senior scholars and people at earlier career stages. Without claiming expertise on any of these issues myself, I identify potential audiences, policy recommendations, and other policy platforms for each article. (Note: the scholars themselves may disagree with my read on the implications of their work.)

Examples of Policy Audiences, Policy Recommendations, and Policy Implications of Select International Security Articles

SOURCES: See note 58 for the citations for these five International Security articles. The spin-offs listed in column four include: John J. Mearsheimer, “The Inevitable Rivalry: America, China, and the Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 100, No. 6 (November/December 2021), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-10-19/inevitable-rivalry-cold-war ; Isaac Chotiner, “Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine,” New Yorker , March 1, 2022, https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine ; The U.S.-China Technology Relationship in Flux,” panel discussion (transcript), Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, October 4, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/fp_20191004_china_tech_transcript.pdf ; Andrea Kendall-Taylor et al., “Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman Discuss ‘Weaponized Interdependence,’” Brussels Sprouts , podcast, Center for a New American Security, March 6, 2020, https://www.cnas.org/publications/podcast/henry-farrell-and-abraham-newman-discuss-weaponized-interdependence ; Henry J. Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, “This is What the Future of Globalization Will Look Like,” Foreign Policy , July 4, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/04/this-is-what-the-future-of-globalization-will-look-like/ ; Henry J. Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, “The U.S. Is the Only Sanctions Superpower. It Must Use That Power Wisely,” New York Times , March 16, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/opinion/us-russia-sanctions-power-economy.html ; Henry J. Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, “America Weaponized the Global Financial System. Now Other Countries Are Fighting Back,” Monkey Cage (blog), Washington Post , December 19, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/19/america-weaponized-global-financial-system-now-other-states-are-fighting-back/ ; Risa Brooks, “The Erosion of Civil-Military Relations,” Power Problems , podcast, Cato Institute, November 16, 2021, https://www.cato.org/multimedia/power-problems/erosion-civil-military-relations ; Risa Brooks, Jim Goldby, and Heidi Urben, “Crisis of Command: America's Broken Civil-Military Relationship Imperils National Security,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 100, No. 3 (May/June 2021), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-04-09/national-security-crisis-command ; Risa Brooks, “What Can Military and Civilian Leaders Do to Prevent the Military's Politicization,” War on the Rocks , April 27, 2020, https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/what-can-military-and-civilian-leaders-do-to-prevent-the-militarys-politicization/ ; Sam Ratner, “The Stuff of Life and Death: Part II,” The World , May 4, 2021, https://theworld.org/stories/2021/05/04/stuff-life-and-death-part-ii ; Renanah Miles Joyce, “Rethinking How the United States Trains Foreign Militaries,” Lawfare , August 14, 2022, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/rethinking-how-united-states-trains-foreign-militaries .

To illustrate the framework and some of the points above more fully, consider a hypothetical article that examines alliances, a staple topic in international relations. The scholar asks, “What causes major power alliances to fail?” To make the work more policy relevant, the author should investigate the policies of the United States or other relevant countries, seeking to understand why they do what they do. Why did alliances with a particular focus, strength, and scope emerge, and what limits did they have? This investigation might involve reviewing government records, interviewing diplomats, and otherwise treating this baseline question as its own research topic. When doing interviews, it is useful to ask counterfactuals to determine why different results did not occur: Why were certain desirable countries excluded or problematic countries included in the alliance? Why was a particularly difficult coordination mechanism included or an alternative excluded? Overall, the scholar should try to get a sense of why the status quo emerged the way that it did.

With this background in mind, it is time to look forward. The question—what causes major power alliances to fail—is of obvious interest to a U.S. or an Asian diplomat, a NATO leader, or another official who might be involved in strengthening alliances. Nonetheless, it is hard to consider a specific audience for this topic. If the piece is highly relevant to the United States, the audience might be the regional bureaus at the State Department, which manage diplomatic relations for their parts of the world. Another option is the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, which has departments that focus on the Indo-Pacific region, Strategy and Plans, and International Security Affairs, among others. Other entities, perhaps less central but also important, might include the International Finance office at the Department of Treasury and various shops within the intelligence community that monitor relations with countries around the world. The more scholars learn about these audiences’ agendas, remits, and resources, the better scholars’ recommendations will be.

Although the variables in play will of course depend on the research, it is worth considering two hypothetical alternative variables: shared interests versus institutional design. The former, of course, is out of the hands of almost all policymakers. But at least some (very senior) policymakers have input into institutional design.

This hypothetical example also illustrates how recommendations and implications may differ. The implications of different interests may lead to problems that are difficult to solve but must be anticipated and managed, perhaps to the point of not relying on allies under certain conditions or expecting only fitful cooperation. In contrast, a scholar may recommend a specific change to institutional design, such as a new entity, or greater powers for or new members of an existing entity. Here, as in other instances, it is important to consider the scope of the recommendation. Academics might rightly propose an entirely new alliance structure, such as an Asian version of NATO. Or they might focus more narrowly (but with more chance of influencing the debate) on how to tweak an existing structure to make it more effective.

Similarly, it is useful to consider how different elements of national power might help, and drafting a basic policy menu is a useful first step. The scholar should ask how diplomats, intelligence officers, the military, and economic actors like the Treasury Department might contribute. Imagine holding a meeting (or, ideally, interviewing people from different agencies) and think about how each might play a role.

It is also valuable for scholars to think ahead about likely problems with their recommendations. If, say, the recommendation is more resources to help gain the goodwill of a particular country, the trade-off is one that senior policymakers always face: fewer resources for other countries. But there may be less obvious costs and trade-offs. Might strengthening the alliance alarm a neighbor, perhaps leading to a dangerous spiral? Might the ally become more aggressive, creating a moral hazard, or, conversely, fear being chain-ganged into a conflict? Such possibilities need not be covered exhaustively, but it is important to acknowledge the limits of a recommendation. Again, interviewing and engaging with relevant policymakers can highlight these limits.

When the research is completed and published, it is time to consider additional publishing options. Many of these should be tied to current events: For a scholar writing in early 2024, what does research on alliance weakness tell us about how the Australia-United Kingdom-United States alliance might hold up or how Sweden and Finland's accession to NATO might be best managed? Leading newspapers might find these topics of interest, as would more specialized outlets like Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy . When possible, scholars should give briefings on their work or otherwise promote it.

Writing policy recommendations can seem daunting, and in many ways it is. It can be done poorly and at times even counterproductively. When done well, however, recommendations can help guide decision-makers and the public on the world's more difficult issues.

In many ways, the process is the same for crafting both a better policy recommendation and a better article. Use clear, jargon-free prose and structured arguments to make recommendations more convincing. 59 Authors should seek out criticism, ideally from those with policy experience as well as from fellow scholars. The editors at International Security are an invaluable resource: they can help scholars think through and fully consider both ideas and implications. By making policy recommendations, scholars join a broader community that seeks to make the world a better place. It is not an easy task, but it is a necessary and rewarding one.

The author would like to thank Michael Desch, James Goldgeier, Matthew Kirchman, Ines Oulamene, Kenneth Pollack, Jeremy Shapiro, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and excellent feedback on previous versions of this article.

As of April 2024, these articles are among the thirty most-cited contributions to International Security , according to data obtained by MIT Press. Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases,” International Security , Vol. 19, No. 1 (Summer 1994), pp. 5–40, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539147 ; John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security , Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 5–49, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539078 ; Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism,” International Security , Vol. 31, No. 1 (Summer 2006), pp. 49–80, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2006.31.1.49 ; Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict,” International Security , Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008), pp. 7–44, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7 Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion,” International Security , Vol. 44, No. 1 (Summer 2019), pp. 42–79, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351 .

See, among others, Naazneen H. Barma and James Goldgeier, “How Not to Bridge the Gap in International Relations,” International Affairs , Vol. 98, No. 5 (September 2022), pp. 1763–1781, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac102 ; Michael C. Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant: The Waning Influence of Social Science on National Security (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019); Stephen M. Walt, “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations,” Annual Review of Political Science , Vol. 8 (2005), pp. 29–32, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104904 ; Alexander L. George, Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1993); Bruce W. Jentleson, “The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In,” International Security , Vol. 26, No. 4 (Spring 2002), pp. 169–183, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228802753696816 ; Henry Farrell, “Why Do Policy Makers Hate International Relations Scholarship?,” Monkey Cage (blog), Washington Post , September 18, 2013, https://themonkeycage.org/2013/09/why-do-policy-makers-hate-international-relations-scholarship ; Nicholas Kristof, “Professors, We Need You!,” New York Times , February 16, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/Sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html . For workshops and other initiatives, see, for example, the Bridging the Gap project ( https://www.bridgingthegapproject.org ) as well as the Scholars Strategy Network ( https://scholars.org ). In the United Kingdom, the Research Excellence Framework ( https://www.ref.ac.uk ) links public engagement and policy relevance to funding, as have efforts like the Minerva Research Initiative ( https://minerva.defense.gov ).

Bruce W. Jentleson and Ely Ratner, “Bridging the Beltway–Ivory Tower Gap,” International Studies Review , Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 2011), pp. 6–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00992.x ; Paul C. Avey and Michael C. Desch, “What Do Policymakers Want from Us?,” International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 58, No. 2 (June 2014), pp. 227–246, https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12111 ; Daniel Byman and Matthew Kroenig, “Reaching beyond the Ivory Tower: A How To Manual,” Security Studies , Vol. 25, No. 2 (2016), pp. 289–319, https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2016.1171969 .

James B. Steinberg, “Universities and Public Policy,” presentation at Presidents’ National Dialogue, University of Ottawa, October 22, 2009, https://www.cips-cepi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/steinberg.pdf .

See Michael W. Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” in Arthur Ripstein, ed., Immanuel Kant (London: Routledge, 2017), pp. 503–533. For a critique, see Sebastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” American Political Science Review , No. 97, No. 4 (November 2003), pp. 585–602, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000893 . A foundational deterrence book is Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981).

For an argument that policy recommendations are not essential for policy relevance, see Daniel Maliniak et al., eds., Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in International Relations (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2020), pp. 8–10. For a critique, see Desch, Cult of the Irrelevant , pp. 250–255.

For a comparison of International Security 's focus on explicit policy recommendations with other security journals, see Jack Hoagland et al., “The Blind Men and the Elephant: Comparing the Study of International Security across Journals,” Security Studies , Vol. 29, No. 3 (2020), pp. 425–426, https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1761439 .

Teresa Pelton Johnson, “Writing for International Security: A Contributor's Guide,” International Security , Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 1991), pp. 171–180, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/writing-international-security-contributors-guide .

See the question “Does your research tend to be basic or applied?” in the 2017 TRIP Faculty Survey. Daniel Maliniak et al., 2017 TRIP Faculty Survey, Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project, Global Research Institute, Williamsburg, VA, https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys .

Graham T. Allison et al., Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), pp. 1–176.

John Mueller, “Harbinger or Aberration? A 9/11 Provocation,” National Interest , Vol. 69 (Fall 2002): pp. 45–50, https://www.jstor.org/stable/42895558 .

Byman and Kroenig, “Reaching beyond the Ivory Tower,” p. 295.

Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 (Princenton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 3–18.

Daniel W. Drezner, The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 43–101.

David D. Newsom, “Foreign Policy and Academia,” Foreign Policy , No. 101 (Winter 1995/96), p. 56, https://doi.org/10.2307/1149406 .

Rebecca Adler-Nissen, “Leaving the Lab,” Duck of Minerva (blog), September 2, 2021, https://www.duckofminerva.com/2021/09/leaving-the-lab.html .

John M. Owen IV, “Review: Iraq and the Democratic Peace: Who Says Democracies Don't Fight?,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 84, No. 6 (November/December 2005), pp. 122–127, https://doi.org/10.2307/20031781 .

Paul Musgrave, “Political Science Has Its Own Lab Leaks,” Foreign Policy , July 3, 2021, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/03/political-science-dangerous-lab-leaks/ .

Erica De Bruin, “How Can We Vaccinate against Viral Political Science?,” Duck of Minerva (blog), August 31, 2021, https://www.duckofminerva.com/2021/08/how-can-we-vaccinate-against-viral-political-science.html . De Bruin points to the program Rigor, Relevance, and Responsibility at the University of Denver's Sié Center as one such effort.

Charli Carpenter, “‘You Talk of Terrible Things So Matter-of-Factly in This Language of Science’: Constructing Human Rights in the Academy,” Perspectives on Politics , Vol. 10, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 363–383, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712000710 .

Michael O'Hanlon, “Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan,” International Security , Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 51–86, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560453 .

“Submissions,” Foreign Affairs , accessed February 21, 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/submissions ; “New York Times Opinion Guest Essays,” New York Times , accessed February 21, 2023, https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-New-York-Times-Opinion-Guest-Essays .

For International Security , see “Submission Guidelines,” International Security , Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, https://www.belfercenter.org/journal-international-security/overview#!submission-guidelines .

Kydd and Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism.”

Caitlin Talmadge, “Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz,” International Security , Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008), pp. 82–117, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.82 .

Barma and Goldgeier, “How Not to Bridge the Gap,” p. 1768.

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936; repr., London: Macmillan, 2007), pp. 383–384.

Keir A. Lieber, “The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory,” International Security , Vol. 32, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 155–191, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.155 .

Barma and Goldgeier, “How Not to Bridge the Gap,” p. 1781.

James T. Quinlivan, “Coup-proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the Middle East,” International Security , Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall 1999), pp. 131–165, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560202 ; Lise Morjé Howard and Alexandra Stark, “How Civil Wars End: The International System, Norms, and the Role of External Actors,” International Security , Vol. 42, No. 3 (Winter 2017/18), pp. 127–171, https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00305 ; Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, “Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War,” International Organization , Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring 2002), pp. 297–337, https://doi.org/10.1162/002081802320005496 .

Elizabeth N. Saunders, “Elites in the Making and Breaking of Foreign Policy,” Annual Review of Political Science , Vol. 25, No. 1 (2022), pp. 219–240, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-103330 ; Mary E. Gallagher and Jonathan K. Hanson, “Power Tool or Dull Blade? Selectorate Theory for Autocracies,” Annual Review of Political Science , Vol. 18, No. 1 (2015), pp. 367–385, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-071213-041224 .

Colin L. Powell and Joseph E. Persico, My American Journey (New York: Ballantine, 1995), p. 393.

Shane Harris et. al., “Road to War: U.S. Struggled to Convince Allies, and Zelensky, of Risk of Invasion,” Washington Post , August 16, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/ ; Afiq Fitri, “How President Zelensky's Approval Ratings Have Surged,” New Statesman , March 1, 2022, https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/03/how-president-zelenskys-approval-ratings-have-surged .

Suzanne Maloney and Fred Dews, “Iran's Nuclear Aspirations,” Brookings Cafeteria , podcast, February 18, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/irans-nuclear-aspirations/ ; Mark Fitzpatrick, “Assessing the JCPOA,” Adelphi Series , Vol. 57, No. 466–467 (2017), pp. 19–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/19445571.2017.1555914 .

Steinberg, “Universities and Public Policy.”

Nikolaos van Dam, “What the West Got Wrong in Syria,” Foreign Policy , August 22, 2017, https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/22/what-the-west-got-wrong-in-syria/ . On variations on signaling in general, see Kai Quek, “Four Costly Signaling Mechanisms,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 115, No. 2 (2021), pp. 537–549.

Donald J. Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: White House, 2017), https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf .

David A. Baldwin, “The Sanctions Debate and the Logic of Choice,” International Security , Vol. 24, No. 3 (Winter 1999/2000), p. 84, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560248 .

M. Taylor Fravel and Charles L. Glaser, “How Much Risk Should the United States Run in the South China Sea?,” International Security , Vol. 47, No. 2 (Fall 2022), pp. 88–134, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00443 .

Lawrence M. Mead, “Scholasticism in Political Science,” Perspectives on Politics , Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 2010), p. 454, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001192 .

Daniel Byman and Aditi Joshi, “Social Media Companies Need Better Emergency Protocols,” Lawfare , January 14, 2021, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/social-media-companies-need-better-emergency-protocols .

Nicholas Sambanis, “What Is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition,” Journal of Conflict Resolution , Vol. 48, No. 6 (2004), pp. 814–858, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002704269355 .

Lindsey A. O'Rourke, “The Strategic Logic of Covert Regime Change: U.S.-Backed Regime Change Campaigns during the Cold War,” Security Studies , Vol. 29, No. 1 (2020), pp. 92–127, https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1693620 .

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States , Vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), pp. 399–428.

Richard A. Posner, “The 9/11 Report: A Dissent,” New York Times , August 29, 2004, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/books/the-9-11-report-a-dissent.html .

Daniel Byman and Jeremy Shapiro, “‘What U.S. Foreign Policy Really Needs Is …’: The 11 Worst Washington Insider Policy Clichés,” Foreign Policy , June 5, 2015, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/05/the-11-worst-useless-foreign-policy-pundit-cliches/ .

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Strategy , Joint Doctrine Note 1–18 (Washington, DC: Joint Force Development, 2018), pp. II-5–II-11, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/jdn_jg/jdn1_18.pdf .

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Strategy , p. II-8.

Alexander L. George and William E. Simons, eds., The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), pp. 53–55, 267–294.

Kenneth M. Pollack, Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 439–451.

Renanah Miles Joyce, “Soldiers’ Dilemma: Foreign Military Training and Liberal Norm Conflict,” International Security , Vol. 46, No. 4 (Spring 2022), p. 89, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00432 .

Edward Wong and Amy Qin, “U.S. Presses Taiwan to Buy Weapons More Suited to Win against China,” New York Times , May 7, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/us/politics/china-taiwan-weapons.html .

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy,” International Security , Vol. 30, No. 4 (Spring 2006), pp. 7–44, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7 ; Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 85, No. 2 (March/April 2006), pp. 42–54, https://doi.org/10.2307/20031910 ; Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “Superiority Complex: Why America's Growing Nuclear Supremacy May Make War with China More Likely,” Atlantic , July/Aug. 2007, pp. 86–92, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/superiority-complex/305989/ .

See, for example, submission information for Foreign Policy at https://foreignpolicy.submittable.com/submit and for Foreign Affairs at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/submissions-0 .

Barma and Goldgeier, “How Not to Bridge the Gap,” p. 1773.

John J. Mearsheimer, “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order,” International Security , Vol. 43, No. 4 (Spring 2019), pp. 7–50, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342 ; Farrell and Newman, “Weaponized Interdependence”; Risa Brooks, “Paradoxes of Professionalism: Rethinking Civil-Military Relations in the United States,” International Security , Vol. 44, No. 4 (Spring 2020), pp. 7–44, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00374 ; Charlotte Grech-Madin, “Water and Warfare: The Evolution and Operation of the Water Taboo,” International Security , Vol. 45, No. 4 (Spring 2021), pp. 84–125, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00404 ; Joyce, “Soldiers’ Dilemma.”

Johnson, “Writing for International Security.”

Email alerts

Affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1531-4804
• Print ISSN 0162-2889

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Academic Report

Report generator.

As a way of evaluating a student’s logical capacity, comprehension level and writing skill , some professors require their students to write a document presenting their ideas, thoughts, analyses, etc. about a certain topic. Other than writing an essay , the students can also use a report in order effectively present their objective deductions and findings.

A formal report is another way of presenting facts and analysis you have gathered from your readings about a certain topic. In requires thorough research, readings, rationalizing, analyzing and making a point. It goes beyond that of an essay, it is more than just arguing a position and drawing conclusions, although a report can also do that, it must comprehensively present pertinent facts and information in order for the reader to see the subject in new light.

As you may know, report writing is a very useful skill not only academically but also in your future career. Not only does it hones your writing skills it also improves your analytical and critical thinking skills since it urges you to come up with objective findings based on facts. Therefore, it will surely help you be good at whatever job you wish to pursue in the future; no employer says no to a critically and analytically adept individual. You may also see marketing report examples.

Academic Research Report Template

• Google Docs
• Apple Pages

Size: 31 KB

Academic Report Format Guide Example

Size: 168 KB

Difference Between an Essay and Report

An essay and a report are both effective ways of presenting information and data. However, some professors may prefer one over the other. In order to know the difference between the two, a list of their differences are presented below:

• Essay are rarely used outside the academic realm.
• It focuses on analyzing or evaluating theory, past research by other people, and ideas.
• Rarely presents the findings of a newly conducted research.
• It only has four significant parts or elements.
• The flow of writing is continuous and does not have dividing sections.
• It usually does not include table, charts, and/or diagrams.
• It should not be used as the method in arriving at conclusions.
• Is usually not reflective about the process of researching and writing the essay itself.
• It does not include recommendations.
• It is argumentative and mostly based on ideas.
• Only offers conclusions on a question or on presented issues or problems.

You may also see business report examples.

• Originated from the professional world but is still used academically.
• Often presents data and findings that the researcher himself has gathered.
• Uses data gathering methods such as surveys, experiment or case study, or by applying theory.
• Commonly has at least 12 parts or sections and 14 parts or sections at most.
• Topics are divided into different sections or headings or sub-headings.
• It usually contains tables, graphs, charts and diagrams.
• Includes the method/s the researcher used.
• It includes recommendations on what actions to make.
• It is an informative and fact-based document.
• Follows specific style for each section.
• It is written with a specific purpose and reader in mind.

You may also like examples of short report .

Management Decisions and Control Academic Report Example

Size: 170 KB

Digital Storytelling Academic Report Example

Size: 309 KB

Flood Mitigation and Water Storage Engineering Academic Report Example

Size: 201 KB

Contents of an Academic Report

An effective academic report must have the contents and sections necessary to nit-pick and through explain a subject. Listed below are the contents of an academic report:

• Author Declaration
• Abstract or Executive Summary
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Method or Methodology or Research Design
• Results or Findings
• Discussion of Results or Analysis or Interpretation
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
• References or Bibliography

How to Write an Academic Report

1. title page.

This means what it literally means. The title of the general report should be indicated on this page of the academic report. In some cases, the title page also includes your name as the author and student number, the name of the course and the course code. For example:

Communication Skills Relevant in International Business

John Smith (012345) Business 300

2. Author Declaration

In some universities or colleges, you will need to fill out a form from the department or faculty conforming that the report is in fact your own output. This form is attached to any assigned report or essay for your course.

3. Abstract or Executive Summary

An abstract is a short opening for your entire report. It is a basically a summary of the report as a whole and therefore should only be around 150 words in length. In order to effectively write it, a good techniques is writing it after all the sections, headings and sub-headings have been presented. Here’s a tip: write one or two sentences representing each section of the report in order to have a complete and comprehensive abstract.

4. Acknowledgements

Although acknowledgements are normally necessary in major reports, it can also be included in an academic report. This acknowledges the people who have supported you in your research and has contributed in the completion of the report. However, do not go overboard. This should only be short and direct to the point. You may also like consulting report examples.

6. Table of Contents

This is where the reader goes to look for specific sections or topics found in your report. This contains the actual titles of each section, heading and sub-headings along with their actual page numbers. A good way or organizing your table of contents is to list the contents in according to hierarchy numbers, from first to last. After the list of the contents comes a separate list for the tables, charts, diagrams, etc that is found in your report. You may also check out management report examples.

7. Introduction

The introduction must present the purpose or objective of the report and explain why the report is necessary or how it’s useful. It must immediately let the reader know that the report is useful in the field it is focused on and that it has a positive impact and recommendations on the subject at hand. In addition, you can define key terms you have repeatedly used in the report so that the reader has a clear idea on what you mean when you use the term. You might be interested in recruitment report examples.

Author’s Note : The following sections (8-11) are primarily used in major reports such as research, an experiment, survey or observation. If your report is based on reading, you can replace these sections with topic heading of your own choosing.

8. Literature Review

In this section, describe and report the previous and current thinking and research on the topic. You include a summary on what other have written about the topic you are reporting. This section will mostly consist of in-text citations from the books, articles, reports, etc. you have read about the topic. You may also see report examples in excel .

Simply, it is a review of all the literature you have read in order to form your own thinking about the topic. These literature are your basis for conducting your own report. The literature review should follow the format, MLA or APA format, you professor has required in citing your references.

9. Method or Methodology or Research Design

This section is all about the method or way you have gathered or collected your data. You present and tell your reader/s how were you able the data you have in your report. For example, you can describe the step-by-step process you did when you conducted an experiment or write a detailed description of a situation you have observed. In addition, in this section it is normal that you also have to explain why you collected the data through that method. An normally, the justification should also be quite detailed. You can include some in-text references to research methods references to help explain and justify your choice of method(s). You may also like monthly report examples & samples.

10. Results or Findings

Simply present the results or findings of your report in this section. There is no need for discussions, analysis and explanations of the results. Oftentimes, this section includes a table to comprehensively present the findings. Aside from that, this is also where you state whether you accept or reject the hypothesis or hypotheses you have made in you report. You may also check out sample activity reports .

11. Discussion of Results or Analysis or Interpretation

This is where you present what you think about the results you have formulated in your report. You can also include comment abut your results in this section. Here are other things the discussion section can include:

• Describing and suggesting reasons for any patterns in the results, possibly including anomalies (results that don’t ‘fit in with’ the rest).
• Explaining what you found (perhaps with reference to theory). You may also see performance report examples.
• Commenting on how much your findings agree or disagree with the literature.
• Considering the accuracy and reliability of your results (and how the methods you used might have affected that accuracy).
• Considering the implications of your results – what they might mean for your practice, for example. • Discussing what further research in this area might be useful in future. You may also like investigation report samples and examples.

12. Conclusions

In the conclusions, you should summarize the key findings of your report. Remember that all the information that you include in the conclusions should have been presented before and are new information. The conclusions should effectively summarize and present all the major points you have made so far in you report.

13. Recommendations

Recommendations are not necessarily needed in all academic reports, however, work-related and case studies should always present recommendations. These suggestions are for future actions in order to solve or improve issues or problems presented in the report. You may also check out free report examples & samples.

14. References or Bibliography

There should be a list on all the references you have used to cite and to back your claims. It should only contain all the literature you have cited in your report. Depending on the requirement, you can follow either an MLA or APA format for citation.

15. Appendices

Appendices contains all the supplementary information is ‘stored’. This could be table of data, copies of observation forms or notes, extracts from large documents, a transcript of a recording, etc. You might be interested in technical report examples & samples.

School Program Report Example

Size: 183 KB

New School Report Example

We hope you found our article on creating an academic report to be useful for your academic studies. We also included some examples which you can use as a reference/guide.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Generate a report on the impact of technology in the classroom on student learning outcomes

Prepare a report analyzing the trends in student participation in sports and arts programs over the last five years at your school.

• Enroll & Pay
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff

Law professor outlines risks, encourages best practices to use AI for legal, academic writing

Mon, 01/29/2024.

Mike Krings

LAWRENCE — One of the biggest concerns regarding artificial intelligence is that people will use it as a writing tool, then pass off the results as their own work. But when Andrew Torrance and Bill Tomlinson tried to list AI as a co-author on a law review article, journals didn’t like that either.

That was just one step on a journey the legal scholars have taken while using artificial intelligence in academic writing, which has included the publication of a piece guiding others on best practices and mistakes to avoid. In their first citation, they noted that the paper was written not by, but with, the assistance of AI.

Torrance, the Paul E. Wilson Distinguished Professor of Law at KU, and Tomlinson of the University of California-Irvine have been longtime collaborators. Their early work using AI in scholarly writing has developed into several papers. “ChatGPT and Works Scholarly: Best Practices and Legal Pitfalls in Writing with AI,” written with Rebecca Black of the University of California-Irvine, was published in the SMU Law Review.

“We wrote a bunch of papers using AI and got them accepted. And along the way we learned a lot about what worked and what didn’t when using AI,” Torrance said. “It’s enhanced productivity a lot. Before, one paper a year or so would be good. Now you can do so much more. We edit ourselves to make sure those pitfalls don’t happen. In some cases, we consider AI to be a co-author. That’s one of the things we learned right away, is be explicit. We celebrate that we use it.”

The paper provides guidelines for those curious about using either of the leading AI engines in their academic writing. They largely apply to any kind of writing, but the authors found while AI can be a useful tool, a human touch is still necessary to avoid faulty work. The guidelines include:

• Using standardized approaches.
• Having AI form multiple outlines and drafts.
• Using plagiarism filters.
• Ensuring arguments make sense.
• Avoiding AI "hallucinations," in which the tools simply make things up.
• Watching for repetition, which the models tend to use.

Torrance is also an intellectual property scholar, so violating others’ copyrights would look especially bad, he said. Making sure citations of others’ work are accurate is also vital.

The researchers provide step-by-step guidelines on usage as well as information about the ethics of AI in writing and its place in legal scholarship.

“It gives you a huge head start when using these tools,” Torrance said. “Remember, these are the absolute worst versions of these tools we’ll see in our lifetimes. We’re on the Model T now, but even the Model T is amazing. But you need to be sure you don’t drive it into a ditch.”

Tomlinson and Torrance also noted using AI allows for “late-finding scholarship.” In traditional publishing, if the science or scholarship changed, that information would have to wait for a new edition. Now, as understanding evolves, writing can continuously be updated. That opens the door for publications that can be “dynamically definitive instead of statistically definitive,” Torrance said, while simultaneously making knowledge more accessible.

Torrance, Tomlinson and collaborators Black and Don Patterson of UC-Irvine wrote that, regardless of what one thinks about AI, it can play an incredibly useful role in academic writing and that those who use it properly can have a decided advantage in productivity.

“We hope this paper allows or helps people to shift some of the mentality around AI. I’m sure we haven’t identified all the possible pitfalls,” Torrance said. “Frankly, a lot of these are mistakes you need to avoid, period. I think a lot of the same principles apply between a human writing and using AI. We thought, as a public service, we should put this out there.”

Regardless of how AI evolves, the authors have laid a foundation for how scholars could use the tool in legal and responsible ways. And a piece of advice Torrance offers students in his legal analytics class can apply to all, even if they’re not in the field of law.

“The tagline for the class is, ‘Be the lawyer who masters AI, not the one who is run over by it,’” he said.

Media Contacts

KU News Service

785-864-8860

[email protected]

More From Forbes

Fighting with your content use the flow-fixer method for fast clarity.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The flow-fixer technique can help you turn a jumbled piece of content into a well-organized piece ... [+] that flows.

How often have you sat staring at your computer screen, frustrated because your brilliant ideas are trapped within a pile of words? You know what you want to say—or you thought you did. But the flow isn't there. The piece just isn’t working. You feel completely lost in the mess you created.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Even writers with decades of experience sometimes need help with their content.

In this article, I’ll share a simple trick for rescuing your content from confusion and making your ideas shine. I call it the flow-fixer technique. And it relies on your document’s subheadings.

The power of subheadings: Your content's roadmap

You're not alone in dealing with organizational struggles while creating content. Even someone with ... [+] 20+ years of experience—like me—can struggle!

The secret to clearing confusion and creating clarity lies in the subheadings, or the HTML header tags—from H1 to H6—that structure page content.

HTML header tags are important for search engine optimization, as they help search engines understand and rank your content. Readers can’t see header tags, but they can see the headings and subheadings attached to each tag. Those heads, in turn, make your content skimmable so readers can quickly get the gist of a piece and easily find what they’re looking for.

Header tags also help you, the content creator, by giving you a map of your content—before you start and as you write and edit. If you follow the map, your ideas should flow seamlessly from one to the next. If you don’t follow the map, header tags can help you see where you got lost.

Google Chrome Deadline 72 Hours To Update Or Delete Your Browser

The fed quietly ‘admits’ gold is replacing the dollar as collapse ‘fear’ predicted to trigger a $15.7 trillion etf bitcoin price flip, apple loop iphone 16 pro details ios 18 s ai plans iphone 14 pro special offer, a quick recap of h1–h6 header tags.

If you’re unfamiliar with HTML header tags, they range from H1 for the title of a piece to H6 for a far-down-the-line concept. Here's how the heading scheme works, with an example of headings from one of my most popular articles: 20 Types of Content to Help You Attract Prospects and Win Customers .

HTML heading tags serve the search engines, you, and your readers.

Search engines read these heading tags behind the scenes to understand the hierarchy and organization of your content, improving your chances of ranking higher in search results.

If you’re not watching out—and even if you are—you can still get stuck in a content muddle. That’s when headings come to the rescue.

A real-life example: Getting unstuck in a tangled article

To illustrate, let’s look at a recent article I wrote about the power of ebooks for marketing in 2024 . While working through the draft, I noticed repetition and something else amiss with the flow. I still couldn’t tell what was off despite reading it multiple times.

I could have given up. Shut the document. Taken time away from the piece. And I sometimes do that.

This time, though, I had a sudden ah-ha —a memory from my days as a development editor for a technical publishing house. I remembered a simple yet powerful technique that involved pulling out and separately analyzing the heading tags by way of the table of contents (TOC).

To illustrate, let me show you a piece of the TOC for my ebook article before I figured out the organizational problem.

Initially, when I pulled out the table of contents, it looked like this; I highlighted the problem for you:

Analyzing the H2 and H3 headings to figure out what's wrong with a piece of content. Can you spot ... [+] the issue?

First, can you see how much easier it is to analyze the structure of an article when you’re not also looking at all of the muddled content in between? That visibility is what makes this technique so powerful.

Second, in the example, notice how the first H3, Ebooks for TOFU , covered types of TOFU content —the very same information as the following H2, Choosing the right content types .

Ah ha! This redundancy made the article feel disjointed.

Applying the flow-fixer technique showed me a simple solution, too: Merge the two H2 sections. The revised TOC put me right back on track.

Collapsing the two H2 sections into a single section covering both topics and examples worked.

Each H3 covered topics and examples in the revised structure, creating a more cohesive and informative flow.

Problem solved! Article published.

The flow-fixer method: A step-by-step guide

Document flow is crucial. If yours isn't flowing well, try the flow-fixer technique.

Here's how to apply the flow-fixer method to transform your tangled content into a clear, compelling piece that flows.

• Outline your content: Before writing, start with a solid outline containing your H2 and H3 headings to get a bird's-eye view of the content’s structure.
• Draft your content: Don't worry about perfection at this stage. Get all your ideas down on paper (or screen), following your outline as a general guide. Remember, even the best writing might start with a messy first draft.
• Extract your TOC: When you have a first draft, pull out the TOC by listing all your H2 and H3 headings.
• Analyze the structure: Scrutinize the TOC. Do you see any redundancies? Overlaps? Sections that feel disjointed? Seeing the big picture is when the magic happens.
• Merge and reorganize: Combine or reorganize sections to create a more cohesive flow. Each H2 should represent a distinct main idea, and each H3 should support and expand on that idea.
• Revise your content: Update your content to reflect the new, improved structure. You'll be amazed at how much clearer your writing becomes.

Re-engineer your TOC for ultimate clarity

The table of contents is your guide to clear content that flows well.

The flow-fixer technique of pulling out and examining the TOC has saved me countless times when struggling with my own articles. It’s also my first action when editing a piece of content that’s new to me, for example, an article a client gave me to edit or an ebook that needs rewriting. Looking at the TOC helps me quickly learn what the content is supposed to be about and if there are any blatant organizational issues.

The flow-fixer method is also for more than fixing existing content. You can use it proactively during the outlining and drafting stages to ensure your writing flows smoothly from the start. Remember, a well-organized TOC is the foundation of clear, compelling content.

Try the flow-fixer technique for yourself. I guarantee you'll see your own work with fresh eyes and unlock a new level of expertise when tackling any piece of content you handle from then, on. A clear TOC is one mark of a master communicator—and now that mastery is yours.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.