[email protected]

  • English English Spanish German French Turkish

Bestedit logo

Thesis vs. Research Paper: Know the Differences

It is not uncommon for individuals, academic and nonacademic to use “thesis” and “research paper” interchangeably. However, while the thesis vs. research paper puzzle might seem amusing to some, for graduate, postgraduate and doctoral students, knowing the differences between the two is crucial. Not only does a clear demarcation of the two terms help you acquire a precise approach toward writing each of them, but it also helps you keep in mind the subtle nuances that go into creating the two documents. This brief guide discusses the main difference between a thesis and a research paper.

difference between thesis and action research

This article discusses the main difference between a thesis and a research paper. To give you an opportunity to practice proofreading, we have left a few spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors in the text. See if you can spot them! If you spot the errors correctly, you will be entitled to a 10% discount.

It is not uncommon for individuals, academic and nonacademic to use “thesis” and “research paper” interchangeably. After all, both terms share the same domain, academic writing . Moreover, characteristics like the writing style, tone, and structure of a thesis and research paper are also homogenous to a certain degree. Hence, it is not surprising that many people mistake one for the other.

However, while the thesis vs. research paper puzzle might seem amusing to some, for graduate, postgraduate and doctoral students, knowing the differences between the two is crucial. Not only does a clear demarcation of the two terms help you acquire a precise approach toward writing each of them, but it also helps you keep in mind the subtle nuances that go into creating the two documents.

Defining the two terms: thesis vs. research paper

The first step to discerning between a thesis and research paper is to know what they signify.

  Thesis: A thesis or a dissertation is an academic document that a candidate writes to acquire a university degree or similar qualification. Students typically submit a thesis at the end of their final academic term. It generally consists of putting forward an argument and backing it up with individual research and existing data.

How to Write a Perfect Ph.D. Thesis

How to Choose a Thesis or Dissertation Topic: 6 Tips

5 Common Mistakes When Writing a Thesis or Dissertation

How to Structure a Dissertation: A Brief Guide

A Step-by-Step Guide on Writing and Structuring Your Dissertation

Research Paper: A research paper is also an academic document, albeit shorter compared to a thesis. It consists of conducting independent and extensive research on a topic and compiling the data in a structured and comprehensible form. A research paper demonstrates a student's academic prowess in their field of study along with strong analytical skills.

7 Tips to Write an Effective Research Paper

7 Steps to Publishing in a Scientific Journal

Publishing Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals: A Comprehensive Guide

10 Free Online Journal and Research Databases for Researchers

How to Formulate Research Questions

Now that we have a fundamental understanding of a thesis and a research paper, it is time to dig deeper. To the untrained eye, a research paper and a thesis might seem similar. However, there are some differences, concrete and subtle, that set the two apart.

1. Writing objectives

The objective behind writing a thesis is to obtain a master's degree or doctorate and the ilk. Hence, it needs to exemplify the scope of your knowledge in your study field. That is why choosing an intriguing thesis topic and putting forward your arguments convincingly in favor of it is crucial.

A research paper is written as a part of a course's curriculum or written for publication in a peer-review journal. Its purpose is to contribute something new to the knowledge base of its topic.

2. Structure

Although both documents share quite a few similarities in their structures, the framework of a thesis is more rigid. Also, almost every university has its proprietary guidelines set out for thesis writing.

Comparatively, a research paper only needs to keep the IMRAD format consistent throughout its length. When planning to publish your research paper in a peer-review journal, you also must follow your target journal guidelines.

3. Time Taken

A thesis is an extensive document encompassing the entire duration of a master's or doctoral course and as such, it takes months and even years to write.

A research paper, being less lengthy, typically takes a few weeks or a few months to complete.

4. Supervision

Writing a thesis entails working with a faculty supervisor to ensure that you are on the right track. However, a research paper is more of a solo project and rarely needs a dedicated supervisor to oversee.

5. Finalization

The final stage of thesis completion is a viva voce examination and a thesis defense. It includes proffering your thesis to the examination board or a thesis committee for a questionnaire and related discussions. Whether or not you will receive a degree depends on the result of this examination and the defense.

A research paper is said to be complete when you finalize a draft, check it for plagiarism, and proofread for any language and contextual errors . Now all that's left is to submit it to the assigned authority.

What is Plagiarism | How to Avoid It

How to Choose the Right Plagiarism Checker for Your Academic Works

5 Practical Ways to Avoid Plagiarism

10 Common Grammar Mistakes in Academic Writing

Guide to Avoid Common Mistakes in Sentence Structuring

In the context of academic writing, a thesis and a research paper might appear the same. But, there are some fundamental differences that set apart the two writing formats. However, since both the documents come under the scope of academic writing, they also share some similarities. Both require formal language, formal tone, factually correct information & proper citations. Also, editing and proofreading are a must for both. Editing and Proofreading ensure that your document is properly formatted and devoid of all grammatical & contextual errors. So, the next time when you come across a thesis vs. research paper argument, keep these differences in mind.

Editing or Proofreading? Which Service Should I Choose?

Thesis Proofreading and Editing Services

8 Benefits of Using Professional Proofreading and Editing Services

Achieve What You Want with Academic Editing and Proofreading

How Much Do Proofreading and Editing Cost?

If you need us to make your thesis or dissertation, contact us unhesitatingly!

Best Edit & Proof expert editors and proofreaders focus on offering papers with proper tone, content, and style of  academic writing,  and also provide an upscale  editing and proofreading service  for you. If you consider our pieces of advice, you will witness a notable increase in the chance for your research manuscript to be accepted by the publishers. We work together as an academic writing style guide by bestowing subject-area editing and proofreading around several categorized writing styles. With the group of our expert editors, you will always find us all set to help you identify the tone and style that your manuscript needs to get a nod from the publishers.

Thesis vs. Research Paper

English formatting service

You can also avail of our assistance if you are looking for editors who can format your manuscript, or just check on the  particular styles  for the formatting task as per the guidelines provided to you, e.g.,  APA,  MLA, or Chicago/Turabian styles. Best Edit & Proof editors and proofreaders provide all sorts of academic writing help, including editing and proofreading services, using our user-friendly website, and a streamlined ordering process.

Get a free quote for editing and proofreading now!

Visit our  order page  if you want our subject-area editors or language experts to work on your manuscript to improve its tone and style and give it a perfect academic tone and style through proper editing and proofreading. The process of submitting a paper is very easy and quick. Click here to find out how it  works.

Our pricing is based on the type of service you avail of here, be it editing or proofreading. We charge on the basis of the word count of your manuscript that you submit for editing and proofreading and the turnaround time it takes to get it done. If you want to get an instant price quote for your project, copy and paste your document or enter your word count into our  pricing calculator.

Thesis vs. Research Paper

24/7 customer support | Live support

Contact us to get support with academic editing and proofreading. We have a 24/7 active live chat mode to offer you direct support along with qualified editors to refine and furbish your manuscript.

Thesis vs. Research Paper

Stay tuned for updated information about editing and proofreading services!

Follow us on  Twitter,  LinkedIn,    Facebook,  Instagram,  and  Medium .

For more posts, click  here.  

  • Editing & Proofreading
  • Citation Styles
  • Grammar Rules
  • Academic Writing
  • Proofreading
  • Microsoft Tools
  • Academic Publishing
  • Dissertation & Thesis
  • Researching
  • Job & Research Application

Similar Posts

How to Determine Variability in a Dataset

How to Determine Central Tendency

How to Specify Study Variables in Research Papers?

Population vs Sample | Sampling Methods for a Dissertation

7 Issues to Avoid That may Dent the Quality of Thesis Writing

How to Ensure the Quality of Academic Writing in a Thesis and Dissertation?

How to Define Population and Sample in a Dissertation?

Recent Posts

ANOVA vs MANOVA: Which Method to Use in Dissertations?

They Also Read

difference between thesis and action research

Although the rules of English capitalization seem simple at first glance, it might still be complicated in academic writing. You probably know you should capitalize proper nouns and the first word of every sentence. However, in some cases, capitalization is required for the first word in a quotation and the first word after a colon. In this article, you will find 15 basic capitalization rules for English grammer.

difference between thesis and action research

Writing an academic paper is not similar to other forms of writing. It requires patience, knowledge, and the use of proper sentence construction. An academic paper should be informative, polished, and well structured. As a student or researcher, you should learn about bad habits and not repeat them in your academic writing. In this article, we discuss 6 bad habits to avoid in academic writing.

difference between thesis and action research

Whenever you use words, facts, ideas, or explanations from other works, those sources must be cited. Academic referencing is required when you have copied texts from an essay, an article, a book, or other sources verbatim, which is called quotation. You also need referencing when you use an idea or a fact from another work even if you haven’t used their exact expression.

difference between thesis and action research

Writing articles for journals requires scholars to possess exceptional writing skills and awareness of their subject matter. They need to write such that their manuscript relays its central idea explicitly to the readers. In addition, they need to abide by strict writing conventions and best practices to befit the parameters of journal articles. It is not uncommon for research initiates and, at times, even experts to struggle with the article writing process. This article aims to mitigate some apprehension associated with writing journal articles by enlisting and expounding upon some essential writing tips.

difference between thesis and action research

After you finish your thesis, what is next is editing your thesis. Rather than sending it to your friends or professors, a better option is to find a professional editing and proofreading service. They usually have trained and experienced experts, have Ph.D. in their fields, and will edit your thesis without prejudice. Their suggestions will improve your thesis's content and structure, rendering it much more effective.

Thesis resource paper You want to do an action research thesis?     You want to do an action research thesis? -- How to conduct and report action research (including a beginner's guide to the literature)   

   

Bob Dick [email protected] http://www.aral.com.au/     (An on-line version of this paper can be found at URL http://www.aral.com.au/resources/arthesis.html )

Introduction

What is action research? Characteristics of action research

The advantages and disadvantages

Why would anyone use action research? So why doesn’t everyone use it? Is there some way around this? How do you do action research?

Choosing an approach

Participatory action research Action science Soft systems methodology Evaluation Methods

Carrying out your research project

1  Do some preliminary reading 2  Negotiate entry to the client system 3  Create a structure for participation 4  Data collection

Writing the thesis

Introductory chapter Chapter on methodology Chapters on the thesis contribution Style and fluency In summary...

References and bibliography

 [  contents   ]

1    The action research cycle consists at least of intention or planning before action, and review or critique after   2    Within each paradigm of research are several methodologies, each drawing on a number of methods for data collection and interpretation   3    Action research often starts with a fuzzy question and methodology; but provided each cycle adds to the clarity, this is appropriate   4    Only overlapping data are considered.  If the informants (etc.) are in agreement, later cycles test the agreement; if disagreeing, later cycles attempt to explain the disagreement   5    An expanded version of the intend-act-review cycle  6    Each person’s behaviour may lead to the other person developing unstated assumptions about that person, and inferring unstated rules about their interaction.  The result can be a double self-fulfilling prophecy   7    Checkland’s soft systems methodology is here represented as a system of inquiry using a series of dialectics   8    Kolb’s learning cycle  9    The systems model which is the heart of the Snyder approach to evaluation.  It is a conventional systems model in which resources correspond to inputs, and activities to processes.  There are three levels of outputs, consisting of effects, targets and ideals    [  contents   ]

This document begins with a brief overview of action research and a discussion of its advantages and disadvantages.  The intention is to help you make an informed choice about your approach to your research.  There is a particular focus on doing research for a thesis or dissertation, or for a similar independent research report.

If a thesis is not your interest I think you will still find material of use.  The document also includes brief accounts of some of the methodologies that exist within action research.  An even briefer mention of the data collection methods which can be used is also included.

This background material is followed by two practical sections.  The first of them describes how action research can be carried out.  A format for writing up the research is then presented.  The form of action research described is one which uses a cyclic or spiral process.  It converges to something more useful over time for both action and understanding.  It is chosen because of the rigour and economy which it allows.  I think it is also more easily defended than some other forms.

I write as a practitioner in a psychology department where action research is viewed with some scepticism.  You may be doing your research within a setting where action research and qualitative approaches are more common.  If so, you may not need to approach it with quite as much caution as I suggest.

In all of this, it is not my intention to argue against other research paradigms.  For some purposes quantitative, or reductionist, or hypothesis-testing approaches, alone or together, are much more appropriate.  In many research situations action research is quite unsuitable.  My only intention is to offer action research as a viable (and sometimes more appropriate) alternative in some research settings.  Should you choose to do an action research study this paper will then help you to do so more effectively and with less risk.

Nor do I have any objection to quantitative research.  If your measures adequately capture what you are researching, quantitative measures offer very real advantages.  However, qualitative measures may allow you to address more of what you want to examine.  In such situations it is appropriate to use them.

The paper is copiously referenced so that you can identify the relevant literature.  Embedded in the reference list are also some other works.  About half of the references are annotated to assist you in an intelligent choice of reading.  The annotations are my own opinion, and might not accord with everyone’s views. 

   [  contents   ]

What is action research?

  As the name suggests, action research is a methodology which has the dual aims of action and research...

  • action to bring about change in some community or organisation or program  
  • research to increase understanding on the part of the researcher or the client, or both (and often some wider community)

There are in fact action research methods whose main emphasis is on action, with research as a fringe benefit.  At the extreme, the "research" may take the form of increased understanding on the part of those most directly involved.  For this form of action research the outcomes are change, and learning for those who take part.  This is the form which I most often use.

In other forms, research is the primary focus.  The action is then often a by-product.  Such approaches typically seek publication to reach a wider audience of researchers.  In these, more attention is often given to the design of the research than to other aspects.

In both approaches it is possible for action to inform understanding, and understanding to assist action.  For thesis purposes it is as well to choose a form where the research is at least a substantial part of the study.  The approach described below tries to assure both action and research outcomes as far as possible.  You can modify it in whatever direction best suits your own circumstances. 

Characteristics of action research

Above, I defined action research as a form of research intended to have both action and research outcomes.  This is a minimal definition.  Various writers add other conditions.

Almost all writers appear to regard it as cyclic (or a spiral), either explicitly or implicitly.  At the very least, intention or planning precedes action, and critique or review follows.  Figure 1 applies.

  I will later argue that this has considerable advantages.  It provides a mix of responsiveness and rigour, thus meeting both the action and research requirements.  In the process I describe below the spiral is an important feature.

For some writers action research is primarily qualitative.  Qualitative research can be more responsive to the situation.  To my mind a need for responsiveness is one of the most compelling reasons for choosing action research.

Participation is another requirement for some writers.  Some, in fact, insist on this.  Participation can generate greater commitment and hence action.  When change is a desired outcome, and it is more easily achieved if people are committed to the change, some participative form of action research is often indicated.

My own preferences, just to make them clear, are for cyclic, qualitative and participative approaches.  However, this is a matter of pragmatics rather than ideology.  I see no reason to limit action research in these ways.  To my mind it is a stronger option for offering a range of choices.

There are many conditions under which qualitative data and client participation increase the value of the action research.  However, to insist on these seems unnecessary.  It seems reasonable that there can be choices between action research and other paradigms, and within action research a choice of approaches.  The choice you make will depend upon your weighing up of the many advantages and disadvantages. 

  The advantages and disadvantages

This section describes some of the more important advantages and disadvantages.  One of my intentions in doing this is to correct a common misperception that action research is easier than more conventional research.  A description of action research then follows.  This provides a basis which will be used later to establish ways of maximising the advantages and minimising the disadvantages. 

Why would anyone use action research?

There are a number of reasons why you might choose to do action research, including for thesis research...

  • Action research lends itself to use in work or community situations.  Practitioners, people who work as agents of change, can use it as part of their normal activities .  Mainstream research paradigms in some field situations can be more difficult to use.  There is evidence, for instance from Barlow, Hayes and Nelson (1984), that most US practitioners do very little research, and don’t even read all that much.  Martin (1989) presents similar evidence for Australian and English psychologists.   My guess is that they don’t find the research methods they have been taught can be integrated easily enough with their practice.  Both the US and Australian studies focussed on clinical psychologists.  The argument can probably be made even more strongly for psychologists who work as organisational or community change agents.  Here the need for flexibility is even greater, I think.  And flexibility is the enemy of good conventional research.   Increasingly in Australia, practitioners within academic settings are being pressured to publish more.  Those I have talked to report that the research is a heavy additional load: almost an extra job.  Action research offers such people a chance to make more use of their practice as a research opportunity.  
  • When practitioners use action research it has the potential to increase the amount they learn consciously from their experience.  The action research cycle can also be regarded as a learning cycle (see Kolb, 1984).  The educator Schön (1983, 1987) argues strongly that systematic reflection is an effective way for practitioners to learn.   Many practitioners have said to me, after hearing about action research, "I already do that".  Further conversation reveals that in their normal practice they almost all omit deliberate and conscious reflection, and sceptical challenging of interpretations.  To my mind, these are crucial features of effective action research (and, for that matter, of effective learning).  
  • It looks good on your resumé to have done a thesis which has direct and obvious relevance to practice.  If it has generated some worthwhile outcomes for the client, then that is a further bonus.  (There are other research methodologies, including some conventional forms, which also offer this advantage.)  
  • Action research is usually participative.  This implies a partnership between you and your clients.  You may find this more ethically satisfying.  For some purposes it may also be more occupationally relevant. 

So why doesn’t everyone use it?

You may wonder, then, why it is not more common.  The main reason, I suspect, is that it isn’t well known.  Psychology has ignored action research almost completely.  My impression is that there is less debate in academic psychology about research methods and their underlying philosophy than in most other social sciences.

I recall that at the 1986 annual psychology conference the theme was "bridging the gap between theory, research and practice".  This was a priority need in psychology, to judge by the choice of theme.  Although some of the papers were about applied research in field settings, to my knowledge no paper given at the conference specifically mentioned action research.  Yet in action research there need be no gap between theory, research and practice.  The three can be integrated.

An ignorance of action research isn’t a reason to avoid it.  There are good reasons, however, why you may decide to stay within mainstream research.  For example, here are some of the costs of choosing action research as your research paradigm...

  • It is harder to do than conventional research.  You take on responsibilities for change as well as for research.  In addition, as with other field research, it involves you in more work to set it up, and you don’t get any credit for that.  
  • It doesn’t accord with the expectations of some examiners.  Deliberately and for good reason it ignores some requirements which have become part of the ideology of some conventional research.  In that sense, it is counter-cultural.  Because of this, some examiners find it hard to judge it on its merits.  They do not recognise that it has a different tradition, and is based on a methodological perspective and principles different to their own.  (At a deeper level some of the differences disappear.  Some examiners, however, judge research in terms of more superficial and specific principles.)   The danger is that you will receive a lower grade for work of equivalent standard and greater effort.  My observation is that some examiners can’t discriminate between good action research and action research which is merely competent.  The fact that a study is directly relevant to practitioner psychology and may lead to change does not necessarily carry any weight.   Within psychology this is a greater issue for fourth year theses than it is at Masters level and beyond.  I suspect it is also more of a source of difficulty in academic psychology than in many other disciplines.  
  • You probably don’t know much about action research.  (Some of you may not think you know much about conventional research either.  But you’ve been taught it for 3 or 4 years, or more.  You have picked up some familiarity with conventional methods in that time.) Action research methodology is something that you probably have to learn almost from scratch.  
  • You probably can’t use a conventional format to write it up effectively.  Again, that means you have to learn some new skills.  In psychology there is a strong expectation that the format recommended by the American Psychological Association (APA) will be used.  A non-APA format may alienate some examiners.  Again, this may be more of an issue for people working within the discipline of psychology than in some other social sciences.  However, most disciplines have their ideologies about how research should be reported.  
  • The library work for action research is more demanding.  In conventional research you know ahead of time what literature is relevant.  In most forms of action research, the relevant literature is defined by the data you collect and your interpretation of it.  That means that you begin collecting data first, and then go to the literature to challenge your findings.  This is also true of some other forms of field research, though certainly not all.  
  • Action research is much harder to report, at least for thesis purposes.  If you stay close to the research mainstream you don’t have to take the same pains to justify what you do.  For action research, you have to justify your overall approach.  You have to do this well enough that even if examiners don’t agree with your approach, they have to acknowledge that you have provided an adequate rationale.  (This may be true for other methodologies outside the research mainstream too.)  
  • All else being equal, an action research thesis is likely to be longer than a conventional thesis.  As already mentioned, you have to provide a more compelling justification for what you do.  In effect, you have to write two theses.  One reports your method, results and interpretation.  The other explains why these were appropriate for the research situation.  In addition, if you use qualitative data (and you probably will) that also tends to take more space to report.   This is particularly relevant for those of you doing a thesis where page limits or word limits are imposed.  If there is such a limit you have to write very succinctly, yet do so without undermining your thesis or your justification.

For most people, these disadvantages outweigh the advantages.  Above all, if you are choosing action research because you think it may be an easier option, you are clearly mistaken.  I assure you it isn’t.  It’s more demanding and more difficult.  Particularly at fourth year there is a high risk that you won’t get as well rewarded for it in the mark you get.

I expect that most of you have had a reasonably typical university education.  If so, and particularly if you studied psychology, you know enough about conventional research that at least you can do it as a "technician", by following a formula.  It’s better to be creative, but you don’t have to be.  In action research there isn’t a choice.  The demands for responsiveness and flexibility require creativity if the study is to be effective.  Yet you have to learn quickly to be a good technician too, so that you do not displease the examiners.

It amounts to this.  Whatever research method you use must be rigorous .  That is, you must have some way of assuring the quality of the data you collect, and the correctness of your interpretation.  You must be able to satisfy yourself and others that the interpretation you offer is consistent with the data.  Even more importantly, you have to be able to demonstrate that it is more likely than alternative interpretations would be.

Most conventional research methods gain their rigour by control, standardisation, objectivity, and the use of numerical and statistical procedures.  This sacrifices flexibility during a given experiment -- if you change the procedure in mid-stream you don't know what you are doing to the odds that your results occurred by chance.

In action research, standardisation defeats the purpose.  The virtue of action research is its responsiveness .  It is what allows you to turn unpromising beginnings into effective endings.  It is what allows you to improve both action and research outcomes through a process of iteration.  As in many numerical procedures, repeated cycles allow you to converge on an appropriate conclusion.

If your action research methodology is not responsive to the situation you can’t aspire to action outcomes.  In some settings that is too high a price to pay.  You can’t expect to pursue change and do good mainstream research within a single experiment and at the same time.

Good action research is like good social consultancy or community or organisational change.  It draws on the same skills and procedures.  It offers the same satisfactions.  The costs are that it takes time, energy and creativity.  And at the end of it you may have to satisfy examiners who are not field practitioners.  In fact some of them may not understand and may even be unsympathetic. 

Is there some way around this?

Perhaps you are discouraged by now.  If so, that’s reasonable -- perhaps even realistic.  On the other hand, perhaps for you the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and the thought of a lower grade does not distress you provided you pass.  In any event, there are ways in which you can reduce the risk of doing action research.  The two most important actions you can take are...

  • At all times collect and interpret your data in defensible ways.  In particular, know your overall methodology before you begin.  At least, know how you intend to start, and check that it is defensible.  You will change your mind about your methodology in the light of your experience; but because the changes are motivated by evidence, they too will then be defensible.   Always use methods for data collection and interpretation which test or challenge your emerging interpretations.  That is, seek out disconfirming evidence .  Integrate your library research with your data collection and interpretation.  There, too, seek out dis confirmation.  
  • Justify your methodology carefully in the eventual thesis.  Carefully explain your reasons for using action research, qualitative data collection, and the specific methods you use.  Be careful to do so without being evangelistic, and without implying even the mildest criticism of other research paradigms.

I will have more to say about each of these later.

It may be that there is enough appeal in the thought of using a research method which suits practitioners.  If so, the following account will help you to do so while reducing the risk of displeasing the examiners of your thesis.

I assume in what follows that doing good research is a goal, and that you would prefer to please the examiners at the same time. 

How do you do action research?

There are many ways to do action research.  It is a research paradigm which subsumes a variety of research approaches.  Within the paradigm there are several established methodologies.  Some examples are Patton’s (1990) approach to evaluation, Checkland’s (1981) soft systems analysis, Argyris’ (1985) action science, and Kemmis’ critical action research (Carr and Kemmis, 1986).  Each of these methodologies draws on a number of methods for information collection and interpretation, for example interviewing and content analysis.  Figure 2 summarises the three levels.

These are choices you have to make -- paradigm, methodology, methods.  Each choice has to be justified in your eventual thesis.  The aim in making the choice is to achieve action and research outcomes in such a way that each enriches the other.  That is an important point.  Some of the issues which need addressing in the choice are presented clearly in Lawler, Mohrman, Mohrman, Ledford, and Cummings (1985), particularly the introductory paper by Lawler.  The illustrative title of the collection of papers is Doing research which is useful for theory and practice .

Below, I describe an approach as one example of how you might go about it.  I have chosen it because it is an approach I am familiar with.  Also, it achieves a balance of action and research, and it is more economical to report than other approaches I know.  The description is quite general, subsuming the methodologies I have already mentioned.  The description is step-by-step, to help you to follow it easily.

I want to avoid the style of much of the literature on counter-cultural research approaches.  Many of them evangelise for their own particular variety.  Consequently they sometimes give the impression that there is one best way to do research, which just happens to be the one they advocate.  I think that the approach I describe below is good, or I wouldn’t offer it.  I don’t want you to think it’s the only way.

So don’t feel obliged to follow the approach I describe.  You can expect to have to tailor it to the research situation.  If you can do action research without having to modify it on the run, it probably isn’t the appropriate choice of paradigm.  However, most of the steps in the description are there for good reason.  If you modify it, be clear about what you are doing, and why you are doing it.  Expect that you will have to modify it to respond to the situation.  Expect, too, that each modification needs careful choice and justification.

It is important to remember that many examiners are likely to suspect action research of being far less rigorous than more conventional research.  It need not be, but much of it in the past has been.  Whatever your choice of methods, therefore, focus on rigour: on the quality of your data and your interpretations.  The most effective way of doing this, I believe, is to follow two guidelines...

First, use a cyclic (or "spiral") procedure.  In the later cycles you can then challenge the information and interpretation from earlier cycles.  Both the data you collect, and the literature you read, are part of this.  In effect, your study becomes a process of iteration.  Within this process you gradually refine your understanding of the situation you are studying. You can think of it in this way...  Conventional research works best when you can start with a very precise research question.  You can then design a study to answer that question, also with precision. In action research your initial research question is likely to be fuzzy.  This is mainly because of the nature of social systems.  It is also because you are more likely to achieve your action outcomes if you take the needs and wishes of your clients into account.  Your methodology will be fuzzy too.  After all, it derives from the research question, which is fuzzy, and the situation, which is partly unknown. If you address a fuzzy question with a fuzzy methodology the best you can hope for initially is a fuzzy answer (Figure 3).  This, I think, explains some of the opposition that action research draws from some quarters. But here is the important point...Provided that the fuzzy answer allows you to refine both question and methods , you eventually converge towards precision.  It is the spiral process which allows both responsiveness and rigour at the same time. In any event, the whole purpose of action research is to determine simultaneously an understanding of the social system and the best opportunities for change.  If you are to be adequately responsive to the situation, you can’t begin the exercise with a precise question.  The question arises from the study.

This is the most important reason for choosing action research: that the research situation demands responsiveness during the research project.  If you don’t have to be responsive to the situation, I think you would be well advised to save yourself a lot of trouble.  Use more conventional research methods.

As it happens, one of the key principles of action research is: let the data decide.  At each step, use the information so far available to determine the next step.

Second, at all times try to work with multiple information sources, preferably independent or partly independent.  There are ways in which you can use the similarities and differences between data sources to increase the accuracy of your information.

This might be called dialectic .  It is similar to what is often called triangulation in research (Jick, 1979).  For more background on this important topic you might read some of the material on multimethod research.  Examples include Brewer and Hunter (1989), Cohen and Manion (1985), and Fielding and Fielding (1986).

Any two or more sources of information can serve your purpose of creating a dialectic.  Here are a few examples.  You may use...

different informants, or different but equivalent samples of informants;   different research settings (as a bonus, this increases the generalisability of your results);   the same informant responding to different questions which address the same topic from somewhat different directions;   information collected at different times;   different researchers;   or, as in triangulation, different methods.

I have described elsewhere a data-collection method, convergent interviewing (Dick, 1990b), which uses paired interviews to create a dialectic.  This illustrates the principle.  After each pair of interviews, the idiosyncratic information is discarded.  Probe questions are then devised for later interviews.  Their purpose is to test any agreements by finding exceptions, and to explain any disagreements (Figure 4).

  So, for example, if two interviewees agree about X , whatever X is, look for exceptions in later interviews.  If the interviewees disagree about X , try in later interviews to explain the disagreement.  If only one person mentions X , ignore it.

In effect, treat agreement sceptically by seeking out exceptions.  The disagreement between the original data and the exceptions can then be resolved, leading you deeper into the situation you are researching.

It is an important feature of this approach that the later interviews differ from the earlier interviews.  This gives you the chance to be suspicious of your emerging interpretation, and to refine your method and your questions.  Each interview (or pair of interviews) becomes a turn of the research spiral.

(For an independent assessment of convergent interviewing as a qualitative research tool see Thompson, Donohue and Waters-Marsh (1992).)

What I suggest you do is follow these two groundrules, and explain them clearly in your thesis.  You will be less liable to the criticisms which some action research theses have faced in the past.

The purpose in action research is to learn from your experience, and apply that learning to bringing about change.  As the dynamics of a social system are often more apparent in times of change (Lewin, 1948), learning and change can enhance each other.

However, you are more likely to learn from an experience if you act with intent.  Enter the experience with expectations.  Be on the lookout for unmet expectations.  Seek to understand them.  A different way of describing action research is therefore as an intend Æ act Æ review spiral.  A more elaborate form is shown in Figure 5.

  It is by being deliberate and intentional about this process that you can maximise your learning.  At each of the steps you learn something.  Sometimes you are recalling what you think you already understand.  At other steps you are either confirming your previous learning or deciding from experience that your previous learning was inadequate.

This is equivalent to what Gummesson (1991) calls the "hermeneutic spiral", where each turn of the spiral builds on the understanding at the previous turn.  It is these -- the responsiveness to the situation, and the striving after real understanding -- which define action research as a viable research strategy.

This helps to explain why action research tends also to be qualitative and participative.  In quantitative research you often have to give a fair amount of time and attention to the development of an appropriate metric or system of measurement.  Every time you change your mind about your research question you risk having to modify your metric.

Participation favours qualitative methods.  Participation by the client group as informed sources of information gives you a better chance of discovering what they know and you currently do not.  They are more likely to join you as equal partners in this endeavour if you speak to them in their own language (for instance, everyday English) than in numbers or technical language.

In addition to gaining some background knowledge of action research, you also need enough prior information to enable an intelligent choice of methodology.  The following section describes four action research methodologies. 

As I have said, there are paradigms (such as action research), methodologies (soft systems analysis, for example), and methods.  You will change your mind during the course of the study about methods, so you need not concern yourself too much about them now.  You may even change the methodology you use; but it doesn’t hurt to begin by choosing one as the possible vehicle for your study.

There are advantages in following a published approach.  In particular it can be simpler to use a process described by an author who has sufficiently explained and justified it.  In your eventual thesis it is then someone else who is providing much of the justification for what you do.  This is less risky than having to provide it yourself.

By the way, I do not think you should accept anyone else’s arguments uncritically.  Satisfy yourself that the argument is well made.  Better still, suggest some improvements.

Below, I give brief accounts of four methodologies.  One is participatory action research, to some extent in the style of the "critical action research" of Kemmis and his colleagues at Deakin University (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988).  A second is action science as developed by Argyris and his colleagues (for example Argyris, Putnam and Smith, 1985).  Checkland’s (1981) soft systems methodology comprises the third.  The fourth, evaluation, is itself a large family of methodologies.  I draw to some extent on the work of Patton (for example, 1990) and Snyder (personal communication).  I do not assume that the developers of these methodologies would necessarily agree with my summary of them. 

Participatory action research

The action research literature is reasonably large, and growing.  It is often characterised by process-oriented, practical descriptions of action research methods.  Action research in education, in particular, is common.  To select from the large number available, I might mention as examples Elliott (1991), McKernan (1991), and Winter (1989).  Each of these is written from a different perspective.

A number of works which use the Deakin model provide useful reading.  Kemmis (1991) is one.  Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, 1992b) has recently published two books in this tradition.

You may also want to supplement your reading from works on qualitative research generally.  Examples here include Gummesson (1991), Marshall and Rossman (1989), or Strauss and Corbin (1990).  Marshall and Rossman is a good starting point.  Whyte (1991) contains a collection of papers mostly illustrating participatory action research with case studies done in a variety of settings.

If you look at the bibliography you will find that three publishers in particular, Falmer and Kogan Page in England and especially Sage in the US, specialise in qualitative research.  Most of their publications (or at least those I’ve seen) are well written and useful.

When it comes to justifying your use of action research, I think the first half of Checkland (1981) provides a more coherent argument than most of the others.  (Not everyone agrees with me about this).  Although he is describing soft systems methodology, described below, he explicitly identified it as an action research methodology (Checkland, 1992).  In his keynote address to the Action Learning Congress in Brisbane in 1992 he argued that a legitimate rigorous action research methodology requires an explicit methodological framework.  I agree.  He claims most action research ignores this requirement.

In addition, Checkland uses language which will be less of a challenge to the expectations of examiners unfamiliar with action research.  In contrast, the arguments of Kemmis and his colleagues (see below), and many other writers in the field, are occasionally polemical enough to stir defensiveness.  I advise caution in their use.

There is also good material in some of the papers in the collection edited by Van Maanen (1983).  Van Maanen’s own introduction and epilogue provide good starting points.

The form of action research taught at Deakin University by Stephen Kemmis and Robin McTaggart provides a framework.  There are several sources, but particularly Carr and Kemmis (1986), and Kemmis and McTaggart (1988).  If your examiners are familiar with action research, it may well be that this is the form they know best.  Deakin also offers a distance education course in action research, reported electronically by McTaggart (1992).

The Deakin University people work with a particular form of action research, and tend to be critical of other approaches.  If you use their method, it would be as well to document and argue for any deviations.  As I said above, they also often argue more on ethical than epistemological grounds, and somewhat evangelically.  Your best strategy for thesis purposes may be to use their processes, which are effective and well explained.  However, it may be better to find your arguments elsewhere.

To help you place their approach in context, you may also want to read Grundy (1982, 1987).  This will help you distinguish the Deakin approach from some of its alternatives.  In addition, McTaggart (1991) has written a brief history of action research, with a particular emphasis on educational settings.

The essence of the Deakin approach is the use of a defined cycle of research, and the use of participatory methods to produce "emancipation".  They call their approach emancipatory action research, and draw on European sources, especially on the critical theory of the Frankfurt school.  The cycle or spiral which they describe consists of four steps: plan, act, observe and reflect..  This cycle is carried out by the participants -- they conceive of action research as something done by the clients, not something done to the clients by a researcher.  To my mind one of the strengths of their approach is the emphasis on research which liberates those who are researched.

Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) provide a description of the Deakin approach.  Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, 1992b) uses a similar framework.  She draws heavily on Kemmis’ work, also relating it to other (especially European) literatures.  Anything by Richard Bawden, who runs a whole faculty on action research principles at the Hawkesbury campus of the University of Western Sydney, is likely to contain a thoughtful and well-argued commentary (for example Bawden, 1991).  His approach is in most respects consistent with that of the Deakin team.  Denham (1989) has done a coursework masters dissertation using action research, though not in the Deakin style.

Participatory action research is a generic methodology.  You could treat it as a back-up position for some other approach if you wished.  It might also be a good choice if the research situation appears too ambiguous to allow a more specific choice.

The next methodology, action science, is more specific. 

Action science

For some decades now, Chris Argyris has been developing a conceptual model and process which is at the one time a theory of social systems and an intervention method.  It is particularly appropriate to the researching of self-fulfilling prophecies, system dynamics based on communication flows, and relationships.

The central idea is that, despite their espoused values, people follow unstated rules.  These rules prevent them behaving as they might consciously wish.  The result is interpersonal and system processes in which many problems are concealed.  At the same time, taboos prevent the problems or their existence being mentioned.  In effect, the unstated rules of the situation, and the unstated assumptions people form about each other, direct their interactions in both group and organisational settings (Figure 6).

I know of no other system which integrates in so well-argued a fashion interpersonal, intrapersonal and system dynamics, and processes for research and intervention.  As Argyris presents the approach it does depend on high quality relationships between researcher and client, and skilled facilitation.  However, there are alternatives in the form of detailed processes which clients can manage for themselves.  These processes are directed towards the same improvement in the social systems and the understanding of the actors as in Argyris’ own work (see Dick and Dalmau, 1990).  They have been used in one action research thesis to my knowledge, Anderson (1993).

The concepts are developed in Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978).  The 1974 book deals primarily with the effects of intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics on social systems.  The later book focuses more deliberately on system dynamics.  Argyris’ 1980 book provides much of the rationale, as do some of his earlier works.

Many people find this material hard to read.  Argyris (1990) is easier to follow.  People have told me that a book Tim Dalmau and I wrote (Dick and Dalmau, 1990) sets out the concepts well.  If you can get hold of Liane Anderson’s (1993) thesis, it contains a very clear overview.  Your understanding of the relevant system dynamics may be helped by Senge (1990), who describes system functioning in terms of interaction cycles.  Most people find Senge more readable than Argyris (though it is my view that in some respects Senge’s book lacks Argyris’ depth).

The research methodology is most clearly described in Argyris, Putnam and Smith (1985).  It is also worth browsing through Argyris (1985), which was written for consultants.  (This is an action research project and action implies intervention.) Argyris’ 1983 paper is also relevant.

Argyris, too, is evangelical about his approach, and criticises other research methods.  If you use his own arguments you may have to be careful to avoid offending some readers.

There isn’t a simple way to describe the methodology.  Essentially it depends upon agreeing on processes which identify and deal with those unstated rules which prevent the honest exchange of information.  The diagram above can be used as a model for the type of information to surface.  There is a strong emphasis on the people involved in the research being honest about their own intentions, and about their assumptions about each others motives.  You can think of it as providing a detailed set of communication processes which can enhance other action research approaches.

I have treated action science as action research.  However, note the view expressed by Argyris and Schön (1989, 1991).  While acknowledging action science as a form of action research they identify an important difference in focus.  In particular, Argyris has argued here and elsewhere that normal social research is not capable of producing valid information.  Without valid information the rigour of any action research endeavour is necessarily undermined.  As I understand him, he believes that action science is a research method which is capable of obtaining valid information about social systems where most other research methods, action research or otherwise, would fail.

Action science is a good choice of methodology if there are strong within-person and between person dynamics, especially if hidden agendas appear to be operating.  However, it probably requires better interpersonal skills and willingness to confront than do the other methodologies described here.  You can use a pre-designed process, but unless you sacrifice some flexibility you still require reasonably good skills.

Soft systems methodology, which follows, is somewhat less demanding in terms of the interpersonal skills it requires. 

Soft systems methodology

Soft systems methodology is a non-numerical systems approach to diagnosis and intervention.  Descriptions have been provided by Checkland (1981, 1992), Checkland and Scholes (1990), Davies and Ledington (1991), and Patching (1990).  The book by Davies and Ledington is a good starting point.  It also has the advantage that both authors are now in Brisbane.  Lynda Davies is at QUT, and Paul Ledington is in the Department of Commerce at the University of Queensland.  Patching’s description is very practical.  He provides a complementary description, as he writes as a practitioner.  The other writers are academics.  Jackson (1991) has provided a critique, partly sympathetic, of soft systems methodology and related approaches.

In the description which follows, I will first outline an inquiry process which stresses the notion of dialectic rather more than the descriptions given by the authors cited above.  I then explain the specific features of soft systems methodology.  In doing this I use the framework which this inquiry process provides.

One form of inquiry process consists of three dialectics.  In each dialectic you (or the researchers) alternate between two forms of activity, using one to refine the other.  Figure 7 outlines the process as a series of dialectics.

  •   To begin you immerse yourself in the reality, in a style akin to participant observation (as described, for example, in Lofland and Lofland, 1984).  You then try to capture the essence of the system in a description, probably in terms of its most important functions.  Then switch between reality and your description of that reality.  This is the first dialectic.  
  • The next dialectic is between the description of the essence, and a depiction of an ideal.  The description of the essence you already have, from the first dialectic.  You then forget your experience of the reality.  Working from the description of the essential functions, devise an ideal system.  Alternate between them until you are satisfied that your ideal achieves the essential functions of the system.  
  • The third is between the ideal and reality.  You compare your ideal to the actual system, noting differences.  This third dialectic gives rise to a set of proposals for improvement to the reality.  This leads in turn to action, which is a dialectic between plans and reality, and is a fourth step.

The diagram may make this clearer.  In more detail...

  • First you immerse yourself in the system, soaking up what is happening.  From time to time you stand back from the situation.  You reflect on your immersion, trying to make sense of it.  At these points you might ask: what is the system achieving or trying to achieve? When you return to immersion you can check if your attributed meaning adequately captures the essentials.  This continues until you are content with your description of the essential functions.  
  • You then forget about reality, and work from your description of its essential functions.  You devise the ideal system or systems to achieve the system’s actual or intended achievements.  Moving to and fro between essence and ideal, you eventually decide you have developed an effective way for the system to operate.  
  • The third step is to compare ideal and actual.  Comparisons may identify missing pieces of the ideal, or better ways of doing things.  The better ways are added to a list of improvements.  
  • Finally, the feasible and worthwhile improvements are acted on, forming the fourth dialectic.  
  • In passing, you may note the resemblance of this to Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle (Figure 8).  His four-element cycle consists of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract generalisation, and active experimentation.

  It is typical for each cycle in soft systems methodology to take place several times.  A better understanding develops through these iterations.  If there is a mismatch between the two poles of a dialectic, this leads to a more in-depth examination of what you don’t understand.  Continuing uncertainty or ambiguity at any stage may trigger a return to an earlier stage.

To give more impact to the third dialectic, the first dialectic can be put deliberately out of mind when the second dialectic is current.  In other words, when you are devising the ideal, try to forget how the actual system operates.  In this way, the ideal is derived from the essence, to reduce contamination by the way the system actually behaves.  The comparison of ideal and actual then offers more points of contrast.

I have taken some pains to describe the process as an inquiry process.  If you wished you could use models other than systems models within the process.  What converts this inquiry system into a soft systems analysis is the use of systems concepts in defining the essence and the ideal.

In systems terminology the essence becomes the necessary functions.  Checkland calls them root definitions.  To check that they are adequate he proposes what he calls a Catwoe analysis.  Catwoe is an acronym for...

C ustomers A ctors T ransformation (that is, of system inputs into outputs) W eltanschauung (or world view) O wners, and E nvironmental constraints.

The ideal, too, is conceived of in systems terms by devising an ideal way of transforming the inputs into outputs.  Systems models help to suggest ways in which the different goals of the studied system can be achieved.

In his earlier work Checkland described this as a seven-step process.  The steps are...

(1)   the problem unstructured; (2)   the problem expressed; (3)   root definitions of relevant systems; (4)   conceptual models; (5)   compare the expressed problem to the conceptual models; (6)   feasible and desirable change; and (7)   action to improve the problem situation.

Soft systems methodology is well suited to the analysis of information systems.  This has been the thrust of the works I mention earlier, though I wouldn’t limit it to that application.  For an example of a dissertation using it in agriculture see van Beek (1989).  Reville (1989) has used it to evaluate a training scheme.  It seems to lend itself to the analysis of decision-making systems generally.

The next subsection deals with a more generic methodology: evaluation. 

It is misleading to characterise evaluation as a single methodology.  There is probably far more written on evaluation alone than on all (other) action research methodologies combined.  The approaches vary from those which are very positivist in their orientation (for example, Suchman, 1967) to those which are explicitly and deliberately anti-positivist (such as Guba and Lincoln, 1989).  For thumbnail sketches of a variety of approaches, ranging in length from a paragraph to several pages, see Scriven’s (1991) aptly named Evaluation thesaurus .

As is often so when people have to deal with the complexities of reality, the change in methodology over time has been mostly from positivism to action research and from quantitative to qualitative.  Cook and Shadish (1986) summarise the trends, explain the reasons for the shift from positivism, and in doing so provide some useful background.  Yes, it is the same Cook who wrote on quasi-experimentation (Cook and Campbell, 1979).  This is one of the fringe benefits of using an evaluation methodology -- you can support your justification of your methodology with quotes from people who are well regarded in traditional research circles.  Cronbach (Cronbach, Ambron, Dornbusch, Hess, Hornik, Phillips, Walker, and Weiner, 1980) and Lawler (Lawler et.  al., 1985) are other examples.

There is a sense in which the distinction between evaluation and some other processes is artificial.  If you are working within an action research framework then appropriate diagnostic methods can be used for evaluation.  So can appropriate evaluation methods be used for diagnosis.  In both instances the situation is analysed with a view to bringing about change.  A fourth year research project by Reville (1989) has used soft systems methodology successfully as an evaluation tool.  Bish (1992), in a coursework masters dissertation, used a general action research approach for evaluation of a fourth year university course.

Two writers who provide a copious justification for their approach to evaluation are Patton (for instance 1982, 1986, 1990) and Guba (1990; Guba and Lincoln, 1981, 1989; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).  Of the two, Guba provides the more detailed description of how evaluation can be done.  The approach is also a little more carefully argued, though too polemical to be used carelessly.

My own preferred approach is based on an evaluation model developed by Snyder (personal communication), who once lectured at the University of Queensland.  I have been developing it into a more systematic process while preserving its responsiveness.  It is so far unpublished, though I can provide you with some papers on it (Dick, 1992a, among others).  It has been used in a number of settings and has featured in a coursework masters thesis by Bell (1990).

However, if you use the Snyder model or other goal oriented models be aware of the debate about goals.  Scriven (1972) and Stufflebeam (1972) between them cover the essentials.  Then use Scriven’s (1991) entry on goal-free evaluation to bring you up to date.

A brief description of a Snyder evaluation follows...

The Snyder "model" actually consists of a content model based on systems concepts and a number of processes.  The content model has inputs (known as resources), transformations (activities), and three levels of outputs: immediate effects, targets, and ideals.  Figure 9 shows it diagrammatically.

The processes allow you to address three forms of evaluation in sequence.  Process evaluation helps you and your clients to understand how resources and activities accomplish immediate effects, targets and ideals.  Outcome evaluation uses this understanding to develop performance indicators and use them to estimate the effectiveness of the system.  Short-cycle evaluation sets up feedback mechanisms to allow the system members to continue to improve the system over time.

If done participatively the process component leads to immediate improvement of the system.  As the participants develop a better understanding of the system they change their behaviour to make use of that understanding.  The outcome component can be used to develop performance indicators.  The short-cycle component in effect creates a self-improving system by setting up better feedback mechanisms.  You can think of it as a qualitative alternative to total quality management. 

Whatever the methodology you choose, you will require some means for collecting the information.  I won’t go into these in detail here, but will briefly mention some of the methods and some of the sources.

Firstly, two data collection methods have a strong dialectic built into them.  One is convergent interviewing (Dick, 1990b).  The second is delphi, a way of pooling data from a number of informants.  It is usually done by mail; this makes the process easier to manage, though at the cost of reducing participation.  It is described in some detail by Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson (1986).  Their brief and readable book also describes nominal group technique, which is a group data-collection process which allows all views to be taken into account.  To alert you to the dangers in using delphi there is a biting critique by Sackman (1975).  A briefer and more sympathetic account appears in Armstrong (1985).  For a recent example of a research masters thesis in social work using a mail delphi see Dunn (1991).

I have described (Dick, 1991) a face-to-face version of delphi, though one which requires more skilled facilitation than the mail version.  This same book, on group facilitation, contains descriptions of a number of methods for collecting and collating information in group settings.

A further dialectic process, though not usually described in those terms, is conflict management or mediation.  This is a process, or rather a family of processes, whose purpose is to reach agreement in situations characterised by disagreement.  You can therefore regard conflict management as a set of processes for data collection and interpretation.  One of the clearest process descriptions is in Cornelius and Faire (1989).

A further technique which can be turned easily into a dialectic process is group feedback analysis.  Heller, who devised it, has described it in a number of papers (for example 1970, 1976).  For other specific techniques you might consult McCracken (1988) on the long interview, and Morgan (1988) on focus groups.  You have to build your own dialectic into these methods.  Heller’s approach sacrifices responsiveness to standardisation, to some extent.  It is not difficult to modify it to give it whatever emphasis you desire.

There are a number of recent general accounts of qualitative methods.  Miles and Huberman (1984) focus primarily on methods for analysing qualitative data.  Walker (1985), Van Maanen (1983), and Rutman (1984) present collections of papers, many of which are helpful in choosing methods.  Market research techniques, for example as described by Kress (1988) can often be pressed into service.  Gummesson (1991) takes a more macro approach with a particular emphasis on managerial settings.

Practical works on group facilitation can also be helpful.  For example you might try Heron (1989), or Corey and Corey (1987).  My book entitled Helping groups to be effective (Dick, 1991) is also relevant.  It has quite a lot on methods of collecting and collating data in group settings. 

 [  contents   ]  

In this section I provide a description of the major phases of an action research project.

In doing this I don’t want to give the wrong impression.  So please note that it isn’t going to be as simple in practice as my description may imply.  You are likely to find that the steps overlap, and on occasion you may have to revisit early steps to take account of later data collection and literature.  Think of it as consisting of cycles within cycles.

However, there are some broad stages.  They are described immediately below... 

1.   Do some preliminary reading

Reading about action research continues throughout the study, but it’s useful to have some idea of action research before you actually approach a client.  If you have no idea what you are going to do, you may find it hard to explain to others.

If you choose the reading carefully, it can also be preparation for the introduction to your thesis.  In fact, it’s a good idea to start writing your introduction.  In that way you can check that you can provide an adequate justification.  It would be a shame if you decided after it was all over that you didn’t choose an appropriate approach.

At this stage, most of your reading is in the methodological literature.  The content literature comes later, as you collect and interpret some of your data.  If you are definitely researching a particular content area you will need to scan the more important literature in the field.  For the most part, however, reading in the content literature at this stage can be wasted if the research takes off in a different direction.

In approaching the methodological literature, look for arguments you can use to justify your approach.  At the same time, notice any approaches which seem to suit your intended research situation.

To begin to access the literature, you might begin with the first half of Checkland’s (1981) book on soft systems methodology.  It provides a clear justification for using an action research approach in language which won’t distress people from a more traditional research background.  Some of the chapters in Van Maanen (1983) are also appropriate.

To give you some background on the use of qualitative data, you will probably find Patton (1990) valuable.  So is Kirk and Miller (1986).  Rigour without numbers (Dick, 1990a) is useful and presents a somewhat different view.

For a general overview, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) is valuable.  Beware, though, that they have narrow ideas about what is acceptable as action research.  Altrichter (1991) argues that action research has strong similarities to conventional research.  This may help you to make your research approach less alienating for an examiner.  For general background it may also be worth your while to skim Guba (1990).  But be careful about using the arguments from this book, as they tend to be polemical.  Phillips (1992) identifies some of the weaknesses in Guba’s arguments.

Action research, as I’ve said, is action and research.  The literature on intervention is therefore relevant.  A good starting point is Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) book on evaluation.  Their "fourth generation evaluation", as they call it, is an evaluation technique which is clearly similar to action research.  It integrates research and intervention systematically and well.  Again, the arguments are somewhat polemical.  French and Bell (1990) write on organisational change from an explicit action research perspective.  Dunphy (1981) deals well with change techniques, in a book written specifically to integrate concepts and practice.  It has the added advantage that it was written for Australian conditions.  However (in my mind narrowly) it criticises general systems theory as a basis for theorising about change.  Cummings and Huse (1989) describe organisational change in a way which relates it more directly to the academic research literature.  This can be useful.

If your interest is more in community change try Cox, Erlich, Rothman, and Tropman (1987).  Don’t overlook Rogers (1983) and his collation of a massive literature on change and innovation.  Although directed primarily towards rural innovation it draws on a wider literature than that, and has wider application.  It is a very good resource.  I hope a new edition appears soon.

You will eventually want to read about specific methods.  For the most part, however, this can probably wait until you are a little further into the actual study.  The reading I’ve suggested in this section will get you started.  You can then return to the earlier sections of this paper or the appended bibliography for further reading.

In addition, Miles and Huberman (1984) may help you to gain some idea of the possibilities for collecting and analysing data.  A general text on action research or qualitative research may be worth skimming.  You can choose from Crabtree and Miller (1992), van Maanen (1983), Whyte (1991), Strauss and Corbin (1990), Walker (1985), or Reason (1988), among others.  Have a look at their titles (and for some the annotations) in the bibliography below, to help you choose.

It is important not to limit your reading to those people whose ideas you agree with.  Some examiners will judge your final thesis from within their own paradigm.  To address their concerns you have to understand their ideology as well as your own.  Presumably most of you already have some exposure to this literature from your prior study of the social sciences.  However, it won’t hurt to refresh your memory.  You will find Campbell and Stanley (1963) useful reading on the threats to validity you have to deal with.  Cook and Campbell (1979) can then provide a valuable supplement to this.  Black and Champion (1976) also provide a traditional view.  For a more recent view, try Stone (1986).

If you are a bookworm, you will develop some useful background understanding by exploring some philosophy of science.  Kuhn (1970) is vintage.  Lakatos (1972) and Feyerabend (1981) will help you develop an understanding of the way all research paradigms have their Achilles’ heel.  If you don’t want to read them in the original, Chalmers (1982, 1990) provides a critical but fair overview together with an account of other views.  I find him one of the most readable of philosophers.

Phillips (1992), in an eclectic, reasoned and often entertaining book, points out the weaknesses in several approaches.  He also provides a summary of current views in the philosophy of science.  Even if you don’t read anything else on the philosophy of science his chapter on qualitative research is well worth studying.

To prepare for the eventual thesis, look beyond the differences to the underlying issues.  If you can phrase your justification of action research in terms of different trade-offs in different paradigms you may find it easier to support your research processes without appearing to criticise other approaches.  There is more on this below. 

2.   Negotiate entry to the client system

As well as the general reading on action research, you will find it useful to read something on entry and contracting before you actually enter the client system.  You might choose from the following.  Dougherty (1990) is a general introduction to organisation development which has a section on entry.  Glidewell (1989) focuses on issue entries.  In another paper in the same book Schatzman and Strauss (1989) deal with the important topic of creating relationships in consulting.  My favoured book in the area is Hermann and Korenich (1977), despite its age.  Argyris’ work is relevant too, for instance his 1990 book; but it’s not something to try to understand in just a day or two.

A collection of papers which focus on field research has been compiled by Shaffir and Stebbins (1991).  The first of four parts is on entry.  Each of the other parts gives attention to the importance of forming relationships.  The approach is mostly ethnographic, but many of the practices translate easily enough into the type of research I’m discussing here.

Obviously enough, your intention during the entry phase is to negotiate something which is mutually beneficial for you and the client system.  What may be less obvious, and certainly more difficult, is to negotiate a fair amount of flexibility in what you do, and your role.  Without flexibility you sacrifice some of the advantages of the action research methodology. 

3.   Create a structure for participation

In much action research the intention of the researcher is to create a partnership between herself  and the client group.  That can increase the honesty with which the clients report information -- it’s in their benefit, too, to have accurate information.  It almost always increases the commitment of the client group to the changes which emerge from the research.

In some situations you may be able to involve all of those who have an interest in the situation -- the "stakeholders", as they are usually called.  In other situations you may have to be satisfied with a sample.  And occasionally it may only be feasible to use the stakeholders as informants, without involving them any more directly in the process.

Choosing an appropriate sample is not always easy.  You may find a "maximum diversity" sample, in which you try to include as much diversity as you can, will give you better information for a given size.  In random samples, especially small ones, the extreme views tend to be under-represented.  You are less likely to miss important information if you include as many views as possible.  In addition, dialectic works better if there is adequate variety in the information analysed.

You can often achieve a real partnership with the client group even when you have to work with a sample.  A convenient practice is to set up a steering committee with a small sample.  They become directly involved with you.  They can also help you to choose others as informants, and to interpret the information you get.  However, before you actually start on this, give some attention to your relationship with them, and their and your roles.  Also agree on the processes you will use together.  Remember to be flexible and to negotiate for ample continuing flexibility.

There is some literature on the value of participation in action research.  It is often less explicit about how you would actually do it.  A commendable exception is Oja and Smulyan (1989).  For the most part you will have to make do with the literature mentioned in step 2, previously. 

4.   Data collection

If this were a conventional piece of research you would expect to collect all the data first.  Only when data collection was complete would you do your analysis.  Then would follow in turn interpretation and reporting.

In action research you can improve the rigour of your study substantially by combining collection, interpretation, library research, and perhaps reporting.  Developing an interpretation right from the start gives you more time and more cycles to test it thoroughly.  In this respect, a single action research study bears some resemblance to a large program of conventional research.  Or, to put it differently, a single cycle resembles a whole experiment.  In action research each cycle is smaller because there are multiple cycles in one study.

A further advantage in recording your interpretation as you proceed is that you spare yourself the mountain of data which qualitative research too often accumulates.  You need only record your interpretation and the data relevant to its confirmation and disconfirmation.  Further, because of the convergent nature of the process, the more detailed information collected in the later cycles supersedes the earlier data.

Your reading can also be more targeted to your results.  You will have to range widely in your reading to find the relevant papers and books.  And you will find it very useful to develop some library search skills and to learn how to phrase research questions in language librarians can understand.  The result will be a literature review which is determined by relevance not by discipline or sub-discipline.

During this phase, too, plans for change will be developed.  This may or many not be of interest for your thesis.  You won’t get much credit for it from some examiners.  It is clearly relevant to practitioners, and to the clients.  Developing plans during data collection also allows those plans to be refined as the study proceeds. 

There are authors who discuss the difficult task of writing up qualitative research, for example Wolcott (1990) or Richardson (1990).  There are many more, especially when you include those on report writing in general.  It is worth your while to read one or two.  However, for thesis purposes I am going to suggest a format which allows you sufficient brevity, and capitalises on the use of dialectic during the research process.  I have discussed this elsewhere (Dick, 1992b).  My argument is that building a process around dialectic leads to economy in both conduct and reporting of action research.  At the same time it increases rigour.

There are some general principles to keep in mind as you write the thesis.  Above all, what you do is less important than how well you make a case for doing it.  Secondly, it is important that you present your methods and findings in such a way that the precision of your work and the adequacy of your interpretation are at all times very evident .  Unless you specifically explain that your study is rigorous, and why, a few examiners may assume it isn’t.

The final thesis won’t look all that much like a conventional thesis, so again you have to explain and justify what you have done.  I suggest therefore that where APA or other appropriate conventions are relevant you follow them.  Where they are not, explain what you have done.

Any writing is easier for being adequately organised around a theme.  My suggestion is that you organise your thesis around the specific contributions that your thesis makes to the body of knowledge.

In doing this you may find that a "Chapter" format will serve your purposes better than the more conventional introduction-method-results-discussion-conclusion.  The structure may be: an introductory chapter; a chapter on the methodology; separate chapters on each of the findings; a conclusion. 

Introductory chapter

The introductory chapter sets the scene by describing the field situation and the reason for doing the study.  It then provides a brief overview of the study, the methodology, and probably the conclusions.  (If you don’t want to spoil the surprise you can state the conclusions as issues to be resolved.) If you mention anything which might be contentious, also state where reasons will be given.

A little historical context is sometimes useful, to the extent that it helps to explain why the study was done.  There may be some content literature, depending on the nature of your psychological contract with the client group and the focus of the study.  Often, however, the best place for most of the content literature is in the later chapters.  This will become clearer shortly.  You would be well advised to explain the structure of the thesis, and your reasons for adopting this structure, very near the beginning.

By the end of this chapter, aim to have identified the need for responsiveness in your research design.  Your argument will then flow logically into the second chapter, on methodology. 

Chapter on methodology

A major chapter then outlines and justifies your approach.  As discussed earlier, there is the overall action research paradigm, the particular methodology, and the specific methods used.  Each has to be described and justified.  The use of qualitative methods will also have to be explained and justified as part of the discussion of the action research paradigm.

In providing your justification, the frame of mind I suggest you adopt is as follows.  There is nothing wrong with more traditional research methods: when they fit the situation they are often the most appropriate.  However, in this particular setting action research is more suitable.

Don’t be defensive about action research in your justification.  The effect to aim for is naturalness.  Try to convey that this is a normal and natural research paradigm with adequate rigour and a long tradition.  It is suitable for some research projects which are not as amenable to being researched using other methods.  In particular, it allows practitioners to achieve better research outcomes from their practice without undermining the changes their practice is intended to achieve.

In presenting your justification it is often useful to write about the trade-offs involved.  For example, replicability and responsiveness are hard to achieve at one time: you trade off one for the other.  Conventional research sacrifices responsiveness in the interests of achieving replicability.  That is what often makes it unsuitable as a change technique.  Action research values responsiveness over replicability, because otherwise it is very difficult to achieve action as part of the research.

Note too that, all else being equal, responsiveness and rigour are both virtues.  In a change program you need responsiveness.  If you can achieve it in ways which allow some replicability, so much the better.  Aim for best-of-both-world processes when you can.

A more telling trade-off is between local relevance and global relevance.  It will also serve as an example of how you can support a counter-cultural approach without explicitly criticising the dominant culture.  To do this, you identify the issue on which the usual ideology depends and discuss that issue.  It is then unnecessary to attack the convention methodology.  The following discussion may help to clarify this.

A common criticism of action research is its lack of generalisability (see Heller, 1986), sometimes called external validity.  To some extent this is true.  The harder you try to find an explanation which fits a specific situation, the more likely it is to differ from what would suit a different situation.  By defining the debate in terms of generalisability, however, you disguise the trade-off.

Some literature (for instance Kirk and Miller, 1986) reverses the argument.  Qualitative research, Kirk and Miller argue, has an ecological validity which quantitative research lacks.  However, I don’t think you change people’s minds about an ideology by stating its opposite as an assertion.  However, Kirk and Miller do acknowledge a trade-off between reliability and validity.  At least an issue underlying the generally-held principle is revealed.

As I said a few paragraphs earlier, the trade-off can be described as one between local relevance and global relevance.  (There are other trade-offs here too, which I won’t address.) You can be responsive to the local situation, and sacrifice global relevance if necessary.  Alternatively you can pursue global relevance at all costs, even at the expense of denying opportunities for local change.  You explain your choice in these terms, and do what you can to compensate for the disadvantages your choice contains.

Justification is thus provided without defensiveness, and with less danger of arousing defensiveness.  The best argued case in the world will avail you little if you tread on ideological toes.  It seems to me that Argyris (1970, 1976, 1980) has presented cogent arguments against conventional research.  It hasn’t produced much reaction or led to much change.  I suspect this is because it is presented in such a challenging way that people find it easier to ignore than to address.

The ideal is for the examiner to be led by your argument to the same conclusions about methodology that you reached.  One way to do this is --

  • explain the topic in such a way that it is clearly justified as an important and timely topic;  
  • identify the methodological issues which you face in doing such a study; do this in such a way that by the time you draw your conclusions about the most appropriate methodology you have led the reader to the same conclusions.

To take a related example...  I suggest you resist the temptation to point out the general shortcomings of other approaches.  For instance you could argue that truly-experimental research achieves generalisability by limiting its focus very severely.  At best its conclusions can be applied to the world at large.  But it is able to consider so few variables at once that it is not the world of people and organisations as they exist in practice.

There is another trade-off involved here.  It might be described as between universality of principles and universality of application.  In one instance you can say: Yes, this is a universal or near-universal principle; it is hard to apply on its own, because it considers only a limited set of variables.  In the other instance, the statement becomes: Yes, you have to treat this flexibly if you translate it into other settings.  But it does consider the situation as it is, and not a small portion of the situation.

The essence of this approach to justification is simple.  Acknowledge the conventional view.  Explain the nature of the choice in terms of underlying principles.  Present your own choice as fitting your methodology to the situation.

If you have followed the research approach recommended here, there are key features which it is usually appropriate to mention.  The need for responsiveness is important.  It usually provides the justification for qualitative action research.  The intention to produce change, and the importance of the commitment of the participants, are good reasons for using participation.

Above all, the procedures used to achieve rigour are crucial.  They may include the following...

  • use brief cycles to provide adequate iteration;  
  • strive always to access multiple data sources to provide a dialectic;  
  • develop interpretations as part of data collection;  
  • access the relevant literature as part of interpretation, to widen the dialectic; and  
  • continuously test your assumptions sceptically and rigorously: actively seek exceptions to apparent agreement and explanations for apparent disagreement; be willing to challenge your own ideas from evidence and literature; do this in both your field work and your reading.

A word about the content literature.  In many studies you don’t know the relevant literature until data collection and interpretation are under way.  This is an important part of being responsive to the situation.  As you reach a tentative interpretation of your data, go to the library and search out disconfirming evidence and argument.  You can then reach your conclusions with more confidence, and any resulting action can be better informed. 

Chapters on the thesis’ contribution to knowledge

Most of the remaining thesis can be organised around the major findings which your study has made.  You might give the most important of these a chapter each.  Subsidiary findings might then be grouped together in a further chapter.  To decide what to include, you might ask yourself: what is the contribution to knowledge of this thesis? What is now understood that was less well understood before?

These contributions are likely to fall into one or more of the following categories...

  • to action research methodologies or methods;  
  • to the client system, and perhaps (with extreme caution) to other similar systems; and  
  • to possible changes to the client system, and perhaps (with extreme caution) to changes in other settings.

If your conclusions fall into several of these categories, the logical order is probably as given above.  Methodological findings also have implications for system findings, and so precede them.  System findings have implications for findings about change, which therefore come last.  If there are no methodological findings you may still find it advantageous to include a chapter on the methodological problems you faced, and the implications they have for the conclusions which follow.  It is important that you are critical about the shortcomings of your methodology without making too much a tale of woe out of it.

Each of the chapters on your conclusions might, as an example, have a structure something like this...

  • As an introduction, a one-sentence summary of the finding.  
  • A more extended discussion of the finding.  
  • A summary of the dialectic informing the finding -- that is, the evidence from your study for and against.  If there is no contrary evidence, explicitly say so, and reiterate what you did to seek it out.  
  • A summary of the relevant literature, for and against.  Again, if you are unable to find any disconfirming literature, say so and explain how you attempted to find it.  Don’t confine yourself to literature from the same field, but try to access relevant literature from other fields.  
  • Any qualifications or implications of the finding, taking evidence and literature into account.  
  • A very cautious paragraph or three on the wider implications of what you have found.

This final point can be problematic.  As I have argued, action research often emphasises local relevance (that is, responsiveness) at the cost of global relevance (that is, generalisation).  When change is one of the intended outcomes this is a sensible trade.  However, a few examiners may not see it that way.  Some people (not all) judge any piece of research according to the criteria and ideology of their preferred paradigm.

You have to make a case according to the rules of their game, not of your own, or find a wider set of rules that let both of you appear correct.  Perhaps it isn’t fair but it happens to be one of the costs of working within a paradigm that isn’t yet part of the mainstream. 

Style and fluency

The prior description provides the bare bones.  In addition it is important to pay attention to the way in which you say what you have to say.  This is partly a matter of structure, and partly a matter of the "tone of voice" in which you write.

Structure applies to the thesis as a whole, to the major sections within it, and to the sentence by sentence expression.  An effective thesis flows from chapter to chapter, so that there are no unpleasant surprises for a reader.  It is useful for each chapter to begin with a sentence or two which previews what is to come.  At the end of each chapter a brief summary, in one or two sentences, can restate the chapter’s contents.  The thesis as a whole is best preceded by an abstract and followed by a summary of conclusions.

At the level of sentences and paragraphs, it is worth remembering that your purpose is to be understood.  This will be most effectively achieved if you use simple language in short, simple sentences.  If the spell-checker on your computer gives readability scores, experiment with trying to achieve the clarity of Hemingway or the Bible.  (I offer this with some misgivings, as I suspect some examiners are actually impressed by material which is highly technical and difficult to read.)

The tone to aim for, I think, is one of intelligent and careful reason coupled with tolerance for other approaches.  Unless you are planning to upset your examiners you will not criticise conventional research methodology at all.  You will not even say anything which implies criticism.  Conventional research is fine (as indeed it is).  Quantification is excellent (as indeed it is).  It is just that the research situation demanded responsiveness, and action research provided that responsiveness.  In your choice of methodology and method you have built as much rigour as possible into a qualitative action research methodology.  When you argue for your approach it is less risky to use other people’s arguments rather than your own wherever possible.  But present those arguments in ways which demonstrate your own scholarship and insight.

If you are quoting people like Argyris or Guba or Kemmis, paraphrase them to remove the polemics or evangelism.  It is perfectly correct for mainstream researchers to pick your methodology to bits if you leave them an opening; it is a serious faux pas for you even to suggest that their ideology is at all questionable.  Use the large and growing literature which is critical of mainstream research to understand the issues.  Avoid it in your own thesis.

This is an exercise in explaining why action research is appropriate.  It is not an attempt to attack other research methods or change the attitudes of examiners.  In fact, sometimes you are safer quoting authors who, like Chalmers (1982, 1990) and Phillips (1992), are critical of much current qualitative research.

Avoid the pernicious habit of sticking a name and a date at the end of each sentence.  This style of referencing doesn’t give the reader much information.  Does it mean that this is a paraphrase of what the cited author said? Or is there some phrase or word in your sentence which the author used? Or is it merely relevant in some indirect way? Explain what the author said, and on what basis -- research, experience, opinion...  Distinguish between your ideas and those of the author, and be sure to provide evidence or argument to support your own ideas.  Be analytical of the author’s evidence and argument.  Most examiners approve of originality and creativity and critical insight, but only if it is well argued for.

Somewhere, perhaps in each of the chapters on your contribution to knowledge, identify the methodological factors and evidence which are inconsistent with your interpretations.  Allow for alternative explanations of your data.  Admit any shortcomings, preferably in a way which also explains why they were a reasonable choice at the time.  If the study has been carefully conducted this need not be a substantial section.  Don’t overdo it.

Somewhere, perhaps again in the chapters on contribution, discuss the wider implications of your findings.  Most examiners value generalisation highly.  Action research sacrifices generalisation (which is global relevance) to local relevance.  It cannot otherwise be sufficiently responsive.  Apart from methodological findings, which probably do generalise well, treat any generalisation with extreme caution.  But, to the extent that you can, it is worth defining the generalised implications.

Finally, don’t assume that I have provided a complete description of the thesis.  Leave nothing out.  Craft your thesis into a logical, fluent, carefully-argued work.  It is better to do a little, and do it superbly, than to do a lot and do it at a standard which is merely very good. 

In summary...

Let me try to summarise the main points I have tried to make...

  • Action research is more applicable than mainstream research methods in situations requiring responsiveness and flexibility and action.  It may be more relevant for practitioners.  It is more difficult and it is riskier.  The best reason for choosing it is that it fits the research setting, suits your preferences and your career aspirations, you are willing if necessary to risk a lower mark, and you know that it is demanding.  
  • It is, above all, a method for yielding simultaneous action and research outcomes.  It is able to do this because it adapts to the situation.  To achieve adequate rigour it does this within a reflective spiral.  Each turn of the spiral integrates theory and practice, understanding and action, and informs the next turn.  
  • Because it is intervention and research, it draws upon intervention procedures and research procedures.  It is usually (though not necessarily) participative.  Entry and contracting are important.  
  • the need for the study;  
  • the paradigm (action research);  
  • the use of qualitative data;  
  • the methodology (for example, participative action research, action science, soft systems methodology, or evaluation); and  
  • the actual methods used to collect and interpret data.  
  • using a cyclic approach, with each cycle involving data collection, interpretation, and literature search;  
  • as far as possible working at any time with two or more sources of information ("dialectic"); and  
  • testing your interpretations stringently by searching out exceptions to the explanations, and explanations of the ambiguities.  
  • An introductory chapter provides some context.  It explains the need for the study, for example by identifying urgent needs for action or shortcomings in existing theory or practice.  It previews the original contribution which the thesis makes.  If there is relevant content literature it may be summarised here.  
  • A methodology chapter explains the approach taken.  It carefully sets out the reason for each step and clearly describes how rigour is achieved.  
  • A separate chapter presents each major finding.  In each of these chapters, clearly present the conclusions you have reached, the dialectic from which they were derived, the relevant confirming and disconfirming literature, and the status of your conclusions.

This is not intended to be a complete description.

_____ 

I sincerely thank Wendy Baruksopulo, Karyn Healy, Pam Swepson, Paul Wildman and Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. 

 _____   References and bibliography including a partly-annotated beginner’s guide to reading in qualitative action research
  A number of works are listed, about half of them with brief annotations.  I am also slowly adding call numbers for those in the University of Queensland library (and some others).  When I have known of several suitable works I have favoured books and articles available in the University of Queensland library when I have known of them.  All of the works cited in the paper are included in this bibliography.  In addition I have also listed some other useful literature on qualitative research, action research, evaluation, and methodology and philosophy of applied social research generally.

I have marked with "••" some works which I think provide a good starting point, and with "•" those that might provide a follow-up to these.  The preceding paper also gives guidance -- I suggest you take it, and your own situation and skills and experiences and preferences, into account

  

Adelman, C., Kemmis, S.  and Jenkins, D.  (1983) Rethinking case study, in Bartlett, L., Kemmis, S.  and Gillard, G., eds., Case study on overview .  Victoria: Deakin University.   Agar, Michael H.  (1986) Speaking of ethnography .  Beverly Hills: Sage. UQL Cent Ug GN345.A34 1986   Altrichter, Herbert (1991) Do we need an alternative methodology for doing alternative research? In Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, ed., Action research for change and development .  Aldershot: Gower.   Argues that the differences between traditional and alternative research have been overestimated The process of validating any study is itself a second research study and subject to challenges to its validity. UQL Biol H62.A43 1991   Anders, D.J.  (1966) Action research.  In S.  Kemmis and R.  McTaggart, eds., The action research reader , third ed [pp 317-321].  Victoria: Deakin University.   A brief overview UQL Cent Ug Biol Thatcher LB1028.24.K46 1988   Anderson, Liane (1993) Espoused theories and theories in use: bridging the gap.  (Breaking through defensive routines with organisation development consultants).  Unpublished MPsychOrg dissertation, Department of Psychology, The University of Queensland.   Antaki, C., ed.  (1988) Analysing everyday explanation: a casebook of methods .  Newbury Park: Sage.   Many qualitative techniques depend upon some form of discourse analysis (the analysis of written or spoken language).  This book discusses some of the methods. UQL Cent BD237.A5 1988     Argyris, Chris (1970) Intervention theory and method: a behavioural science view .  Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.   UQL Cent HD38.A682 1970     Argyris, Chris (1976) Problems and new directions in industrial psychology.  In Dunnette, Marvin M., Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology .  Chicago: Rand McNally.   UQL Ug HF5548.8.H265 1976     •  Argyris, Chris (1980) Inner contradictions of rigorous research .  New York: Academic Press.   Some of the features of traditional empirical research are taken for granted, and their disadvantages not recognised.  Argyris argues, here and elsewhere, that traditional research has its own threats to rigour. UQL Cent Q180.55.S62A73 1980   Argyris, Chris (1983) Action science and intervention.  Journal of Applied Behavioural Science , 19, 115-140.   UQL Cent PER BF1.J55   Argyris, Chris (1985), Strategy, change and defensive routines .  Boston: Pitman.   UQL Cent HD58.8.A755 1985   Argyris, Chris (1990), Overcoming organisational defences: facilitating organisational learning .  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.   UQL on order [cip:] HD58.8.A753 1990   •• Argyris, Chris; Putnam, Robert and Smith, Diana McLain (1985) Action science: concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention .  San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass.   Offers a methodology for researching social systems in ways which gain more valid data while treating those researched as mature and responsible adults.  In effect it is equivalent to a form of participative action research, with particular attention given to generating more valid information. UQL Cent H62.A663 1985   Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald A.  (1974), Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness .  San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass.   UQL Cent Ug Econ Herston LC1059.A731974   Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald A.  (1978), Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective , New York: McGraw-Hill.   UQL Cent HD58.8.A751978   Argyris, C.hris, and Schön, Donald A.  (1989) Participative action research and action science compared: a commentary.  American Behavioural Scientist , 32, 612-623.   Most social research, including most action research, the authors argue, is fundamentally flawed because the researcher cannot guarantee the validity of the information provided.  The unspoken rules which govern social interaction prevent some issues being discussed.  Action science, by creating a more open relationship between researcher and researched, and by surfacing and confronting the rules, enables valid data to be collected. UQL Cent Ug PER H1.A472   Argyris, Chris and Schön, Donald A.  (1991), Participative action research and action science compared: a commentary.  In W.F.  Whyte, ed., Participatory action research .  Newbury Park: Sage [85-96].   UQL Cent H62.P295 1990   Armeratus, A., Bederan, A.  and Pond, S.  (1983) Research issues in OD evaluation: past present and future.  Academy of Management Review , 8, 320-325.   UQL Cent PER HD28.A245   • Armstrong, J.  Scott (1985) Long-range forecasting: from crystal ball to computer , second edition.  New York: Wiley   A readable and informative overview of group processes and techniques, most of which can be used for purposes in addition to forecasting.  Summarises the research on many of the techniques.  Apart from that, it is worth getting for the annotated bibliography. UQL HB3730.A57 1978   Bannister, D.  and Fransella, F.  (1986) Inquiring man: the psychology of personal constructs , 3rd edition.  London: Croom Helm.   There is a complex theory (personal construct theory) and methodology (repertory grid) for investigating people’s perceptions.  This is one of a number of books by these authors which discuss personal construct theory.  Unlike most individual-centred techniques, it is reasonably well regarded in academic circles. UQL Cent BF698.B3143 1986   Barlow, D.H., Hayes, S.C., and Nelson, R.O.  (1984), The scientist practitioner: research and accountability in clinical and educational settings .  New York: Pergamon.   Reports an empirical study of practitioner training for psychologists in the USA.  Most schools continue to use a scientist practitioner model despite evidence that most psychological practitioners don’t do research, and don’t even read all that much. UQL Cent Herston RC467.B361984   Bartlett, L., Kemmis, S.  and Gillard, G., eds.  (1983) Case study on overview .  Victoria: Deakin University.

  UQL Cent PER BF1.J55

Bawden, Richard (1991) Towards action researching systems.  In O.  Zuber-Skerrit, ed., Action research for change and development .  Aldershot: Gower.

  A well-illustrated account of some of the models Bawden uses in his extensive practice of action research.  Readable, and with depth.

UQL Biol H62.A43 1991

Beer, Michael; and Walton, Anna Elise (1987) Organisation change and development.  Annual Review of Psychology , 38, 339-367.

  An account of the difficulties of researching social systems, this especially questions the use of causal rather than systems models, the sacrifice of relevance for precision, the ignoring of the environmental context, and the tendency to ignore the needs of users.  "Change is not brought about by following a grand plan but by continually readjusting directions and goals".

UQL Cent Ug PER BF30.A56

Bell, G.  (1990), An evaluation of a public welfare organisation using Snyder’s 1986 "Evaluation as action research" model .  Unpublished MPsychOrg thesis.  St Lucia: University of Queensland, Department of Psychology.

  UQL Fryer THESIS THE7198

Bellenger, Danny, Bernhardt, Kenneth L., and Goldstucker, Jac L.  (1976) Qualitative research in marketing .  Chicago: American Marketing Association.

  Many marketing research techniques can be pressed into service for action research generally.

UQL Cent HF5415.2.B455 1976

Berg, Bruce L.  (1988) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences .  Hemel Hempstead, England: Allyn & Bacon.

  UQL Cent on order

Bish, A.J.  (1992), An action research evaluation of mechanisms for reflection in a postgraduate psychology course .  St Lucia: Department of Psychology, unpublished MPsychOrg thesis.

  An evaluation of an experiential course in fourth year psychology, using a general action research framework to guide the approach.  The most important finding was that it was useful to have a variety of reflective mechanisms, because they enhanced one another, and allowed for individual differences.

UQL Fryer THESIS THE7855

Black, James A.  and Champion, Dean J.  (1976) Methods and issues in social research .  New York: Wiley.

  A traditional approach to social research.

UQL Cent Ug H61.B476 1976

Borman, K., LeCompte, M.N., and Goetz, J.  (1986) Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn’t work.  American Behavioural Scientist , 30, 42-57.

  UQL Cent Ug PER H1.A472

Brewer, John & Hunter, Albert (1989) Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles .  Newbury Park: Sage.

  The purpose of multimethod research is to increase the rigour of research.  It is assumed that some of the systematic biases of different methods cancel each other out.  See also "triangulation".

UQL Cent Herston H62.B658 1989

Brown, A.  and Heller, F.  (1981) Usefulness of group feedback analysis as a research method: its application to a questionnaire study.  Human Relations , 34, 141-156.

  Group feedback analysis is in effect a small-group method for survey feedback.  It therefore lends itself to research which achieves change through working directly with small groups; but can be used with several such groups to allow results to be collated over larger numbers.  Heller is the person who devised group feedback analysis, and has written in several papers on its use for combined research and intervention.

UQL Cent PER H1.H8

Bryant, Fred B.; Edwards, John; Tindale, R.  Scott; Posavac, Emil J.; Heath, Linda; Henderson, Eaaron; and Suarez-Balcazar, Yolanda, eds.  (1992) Methodological issues in applied social psychology .  New York: Plenum.

  A collection of papers on methods, methodologies and issues in social research.  Qualitative and quantitative methods are addressed, and current developments receive attention.

UQL Cent on order [cip:] HM251.M4533 1992

Burrell, Gibson, and Morgan, Gareth (1985) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life .  London: Heinemann.

  UQL Biol HM131.B833 1985 [1979: UQL Cent]

Cameron, Deborah; Frazer, Elizabeth; Harvey, Penelope; Rampton, M.B.H.; and Richardson, Kay (1992) Researching language: issues of power and method .  London: Routledge.

  This book, written from a number of different disciplinary perspectives, focuses on the relationship between researcher and researched.  It discusses some of the ways in which the usual power difference can be minimised, with particular attention to the researching of language and the language of research.

[cip:] P126.R47 1992

•• Campbell, Donald T.  and Stanley, Julian C.  (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research .  Chicago: Rand McNally.

  The positivist bible for field research and an important contribution to the practical literature on methodology.  Positivist research is seen as the ideal.  Research designs which fall short of true experiments are subject to various threats to validity which must be addressed in one way or another.  The approach may sell qualitative research short, but the issues are issues which require addressing in one way or another.

UQL Cent Ug Biol Q175.C23 1966

Carey, Martha Ann and Smith, Mickey W.  (1992) Enhancement of validity through qualitative approaches: incorporating the patient’s perspective.  Evaluation and the Health Professions , 15(1), 107-114.

  Qualitative and participative methods are used to refine a research program into HIV.  A number of participative methods are described.  The authors conclude that the participative methods were of value in designing the program.

UQL Cent PER RA399.A1E9

•• Carr, Wilfred and Kemmis, Stephen (1986) Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research.  London: Falmer Press.  [Available from Deakin UP]

  A strongly-put case for a particular approach to research, using participative action research methods.  The form of action research advocated is cyclic, is done by those researched, and incorporates the philosophy of the Frankfurt school.  The cycle used is: plan, act, observe, reflect.  Valuable.

UQL Cent Ug LB1025.2.C275 1986

Cavallo, Roger (1982) Systems methodology in social science research: recent developments .  Boston: Kluwer/Nijhoff.

  UQL Cent H62.S98 1982

Centre for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA (1987) Program evaluation kit , 2nd edition.  Newbury Park: Sage.

  Contents: v.1 Evaluator’s handbook.  - v.2 How to focus an evaluation.  - v.3 How to design a program evaluation.  v.4 How to use qualitative methods in evaluation.  - v.5 How to assess program implementation.  - v.6.  How to measure attitudes.  - v.7 How to measure performance and use tests.  - v.8 How to analyse data.  - v.9 How to communicate evaluation findings

UQL Cent Biol Herston QTO LB2806.P76 1987

• Chalmers, Alan F.  (1982) What is this thing called science?: an assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods , 2nd edition.  St.  Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press.

  A critical but understanding discussion of current views in the philosophy of science.  This is a readable account from an author who has the capacity to review sympathetically the work of people with whom he disagrees.  He argues against a single scientific method, but claims that there are some best practices which nevertheless allow a scientific method to be defended or criticised.  There is a readable summary of the important views of philosophers Lakatos and Feyerabend.

UQL Cent Ug Fryer Q175.C46 1982

•• Chalmers, Alan F.  (1990) Science and its fabrication .  Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

  An expansion and clarification of the arguments he put forward in Chalmers (1982).  He restates his position that any particular scientific methodology is to be evaluated against the aims of that form of science.  His argument is mainly about the physical sciences but appears to allow extension to the social sciences.

UQL Cent Ug Q175.C4457 1990

Chambers, Robert (1981) Rapid rural appraisal: rationale and repertoire.  Public Administration and Development , 1, 95-106.

  Rapid rural appraisal is a participative and qualitative diagnostic technique used frequently in rural settings, especially agricultural extension.

UQL Cent JA8.P82

•• Checkland, Peter (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice .  Chichester: Wiley.

  An important book on a methodology for analysing and intervening in social systems.  Systems concepts are used qualitatively to understand a social system, devise more effective ways of achieving its outcomes, and planning improvement.  The first half of the book presents one of the most closely argued defences of action research as a legitimate research paradigm.

UQL Cent Ug Q295.C45 1981

Checkland, Peter (1992) From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research.  In C.S.  Bruce and A.M.  Russell, Transforming tomorrow today (2nd World Congr.  on Action Learning).  Brisbane: Action Learning Action Research & Process Management Assn

  In this conference paper Checkland identifies soft systems methodology as action research.  He criticises most action research for lacking an adequate, well argued methodological framework.

Checkland, Peter and Scholes, Jim (1990) Soft systems methodology in action .  Chichester: Wiley.

  An account, liberally illustrated with specific examples, of soft systems methodology.

UQL Cent Biol Q295.C449 1990

• Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1990) Theory-driven evaluations .  Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.

  UQL Cent H62.C365 1990

Chen, Huey-Tsyh and Rossi, Peter H., eds.  (1992) Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations .  New York: Greenwood Press.

  UQL on order

Clark, Alf W., ed.  (1976) Experimenting with organisational life: the action research approach .  New York: Plenum.

  Papers on action research in organisations.

UQL Cent Ug H62.E94 1976

Clark, Peter A.  (1972) Action research and organisational change .  London: Harper and Row.

  This useful book includes, among other things, a discussion of different consulting styles and their advantages and disadvantages.

UQL Cent HM131.C55 1972

Cohen, L.  and Manion, L.  (1989), Research methods in education , 3rd edition.  London: Croom Helm.

  UQL Ug Thatcher LB1028.C572 1989

• Cook, Thomas D.  and Campbell, Donald T.  (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings .  Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally.

Ways of improving the rigour of field research when "true experiments" can not be conducted.

UQL Cent Ug H62.C63 1979

Cook, Thomas D.  and Reichardt, Charles S.  (1979) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

  UQL Cent H62.A1Q34

•• Cook, Thomas D.  and Shadish, W.R.  (1986) Program evaluation: the worldly science.  Annual Review of Psychology , 37, 193-232.

  A review of current issues in evaluation, and an acknowledgment that dealing with a complex and demanding reality has required the abandonment of positivist and reductionist approaches.

Corey, Marianne Schneider; and Corey, Gerald (1987) Groups: process and practice, third edition .  Belmont, Ca.: Brooks/Cole.

  Group dynamics and group facilitation, with special attention to therapeutic groups.

UQL Ug RC488.C59 1987

Cornelius, Helena, and Faire, Shoshana (1989) Everyone can win: how to resolve conflict .  Brookvale, NSW: Simon and Schuster.

  It is worth reading this book for the material on "Mapping conflicts" alone.  The integrated and systematic approach to conflict management described here is that of the Conflict Resolution Network.  One of the most easily learned, and easily taught, packages on conflict management.

UQL Cent Herston HM136.C67 1989

Coulthard, Malcolm (1985) An introduction to discourse analysis , new edition.  London: Longman

An account of ways of analysing qualitative data in the form of language.

UQL Cent P302.C64 1985

Cox, Fred M.; Erlich, John L.; Rothman, Jack; and Tropman, John E., eds.  (1987) Strategies for community organisation: a book of readings, 4th edition.  Itasca: Peacock.

An informative collection of papers on community organising and community development by some of the leading writers in the field.  A mix of theory and practice.

UQL Ug HV41.S82 1987

Crabtree, Benjamin F.  and Miller, William L., eds.  (1992) Doing qualitative research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

The papers in this book cover the stages of the research process using qualitative methods, including some case studies.  Although the emphasis is on medical research (especially primary health care), it provides a convenient and readable overview of qualitative research methods.

[cip:] R853.S64D65 1992

Craig, Dorothy (1978) Hip pocket guide to planning and evaluation .  San Diego: University Associates.

Intended for the lay reader, this is a clear exposition of a change-oriented approach to evaluation.  Don’t be put off by its age -- it’s good.  In workbook format, it is readable and systematic enough to follow in step-by-step fashion if necessary.  You can use it as a general introduction to evaluation for practitioners.  The "hip pocket" of the title must refer to the price, as it certainly doesn’t fit in my hip (or overcoat) pocket.

[cip:] HD3028.C7

• Cronbach, Lee J.; Ambron, Sueann R.; Dornbusch, Sanford M.; Hess, Robert D.; Hornik, Robert C.; Phillips, D.C.; Walker, Decker F.; and Weiner, Stephen S.  (1980) Toward reform of program evaluation: aims, methods and institutional arrangements .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A wide-ranging account of current issues in program evaluation.

UQL Cent H62.T591980

Cummings, Thomas G.  and Huse, Edgar (1989) Organisation development and change , 4th edition.  St Paul: West.

The fourth edition of one of the "bibles" (previous editions by Huse, or Huse and Cummings).  More research oriented than most OD books, it draws heavily on research (especially North American) on organisational behaviour and similar topics.  If you want a general handbook on OD, you could do worse than this.  The earlier editions are by Huse and Cummings, or Huse alone.

UQL [1985:] HM131.H7931985

•• Davies, Lynda and Ledington, Paul (1991) Information in action: soft systems methodology .  Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.

How to apply Checkland’s soft systems methodology in practice, written by people who did their doctoral research under Checkland.  Easier to follow, and more practical, than Checkland’s own writing.  And the authors are local academics, so you can always ask them directly if you don’t understand something.

UQL Cent Biol Q295.D35 1991

• Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H.  and Gustafson, D.H.  (1986) Group techniques for program planning .  Middleton, Wis.: Greenbriar.

Detailed descriptions of nominal group technique, which collects information from each person in turn in a group, and delphi, a mail technique for pooling data from a number of experts.

UQL Cent Econ [1975:] HD30.23.D45 1975

Denham, D.  (1989), An action research approach to planning a staff development program for a group of secondary school counsellors .  Unpublished Masters of Applied Psychology Dissertation, Department of Psychology, The University of Queensland.

This study used a series of very brief action research based processes to conduct research on training needs as part of a series of brief seminars.

UQL Fryer THESIS THE7135

•• Dick, Bob (1990a) Rigour without numbers: the potential of dialectical processes as qualitative research tools .  Brisbane: Interchange.

On the use of processes for data collection and interpretation within an action research framework.  The monograph argues that qualitative research methods need not surrender rigour, if carefully designed.

UQL Cent HM251.D495 1990

Dick, Bob (1990b) Convergent interviewing , version 3.  Brisbane: Interchange.

An interviewing method which uses structured process, unstructured content, and a procedure for increasing the rigour of qualitative information.  It provides more precise and detailed information than can usually be expected from unstructured interviewing methods.

[cip:] 158.3

Dick, Bob (1991) Helping groups to be effective: skills, processes and concepts for group facilitation , 2nd edition.  Chapel Hill, Qld.: Interchange.

A balance of concept and practice for the novice or experienced group facilitator or consultant.  Covers preliminary activities such as team-building and climate setting, problem-solving, and dealing with emergent problems in group process.  There are some detailed "recipes", though with enough conceptual material to aid understanding.  Some of the processes can be used by ordinary group members as well as by facilitators.

UQL Cent HD58.9.D53 1991

Dick, B.  (1992a), Qualitative evaluation for program improvement.  In Managing program evaluation , conference proceedings.  Sydney: Institute of International Research.  [pp.109-128]

Dick, B.  (1992b), Qualitative action research: improving the rigour and economy.  In Christine S.  Bruce and Anne L.  Russell, eds., Transforming tomorrow today: 2nd World Congress on Action Learning .  Brisbane: Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management Association.  [432-435]

Dick, B.  and Dalmau, T.  (1990), Values in action: applying the ideas of Argyris and Schön .  Chapel Hill, Qld.: Interchange.

An overview of the key ideas of Argyris and Schön is followed by a series of structured processes inspired by Argyris’ ideas.  Some of the processes can be used for action research purposes, reducing the need for the highly skilled facilitation that Argyris’ approach usually requires.

UQL Cent Biol Ug Thatcher BF441.D521990

Dougherty, A.M.  (1990), Consultation: practice and perspectives .  Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks/Cole.

A readable yet adequately thorough overview of the consulting process.  Easy to follow, and systematic enough to be valuable for novices.  It gives more than the usual amount of attention to the important entry and contracting phases.

UQL Cent UG BF637.C56D681990

Dubin, Robert (1978) Theory building , revised edition.  New York: Free Press.

How to construct theories.

UQL Cent Ug H61.D82 1978

Dunn, J.C.  (1991), Social impact assessment - its role, effective use and future in Australia: a practitioner’s viewpoint .  Unpublished Master of Social Planning and Development thesis, Dept of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland.

This study used a mail delphi process to research attitudes of practitioners to social impact assessment, and to collect their predictions for the future.

UQL Fryer THESIS THE7649

Dunphy, D.  (1981), Organisational change by choice .  Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

An Australian account which achieves a good balance between theory and practice, between big-picture processes and detail.  Hasn’t dated.

UQL Cent Biol Econ Thatcher HD58.8.D85 1981

Elliott, John (1991) Action research for educational change .  Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Action research in educational settings.

UQL Ug LB1028.24.E45 1990

Ely, Margot; with Margaret Anzul, Teri Friedman, Diane Garner, and Ann McCormack Steinmetz (1991) Doing qualitative research: circles within circles .  London: Falmer Press.

A warm, personal account by a number of people of their approach to a number of forms of qualitative research.

UQL Ug GN345.E481991

Fay, Brian (1987) Critical social science: liberation and its limits .  Cambridge: Polity Press.

A series of methodologies have been informed by the philosophy of Habermas and the Frankfurt school of philosophy, including Kemmis’ critical action research and Jackson’s critical systems thinking.  In this account Fay sets out the nature of critical theory.  This is a more reasoned account than Fay’s earlier work, which was somewhat evangelical.

UQL Cent Ug H61.F35 1987

Feyerabend, P.  (1981), Problems of empiricism .  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feyerabend argues for an "anarchistic" approach to the choice of scientific paradigm.  The bases of our scientific methodology and philosophy are ideologically rather than empirically based.  Each of us should therefore choose deliberately, and deliberately argue for, the paradigm which we adopt.

UQL Cent Q175.F4941981

• Fielding, Nigel G.  and Fielding, Jane L.  (1986) Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in social research .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

A well-argued and practical account of how to build triangulation into data collection in social research.  Four forms of triangulation are discussed: different data sets (different times or samples), researchers, theories and methods.

UQL Ug H62.F425 1986

Flood, Robert L., and Jackson, Michael C.  (1991) Creative problem solving: total systems intervention .  Chichester: Wiley.

Flood and Jackson are systems theorists with an interest in organisational applications.  This book describes a particular form of systems approach known as total systems intervention or TSI.  It can be regarded as a form of systems-based action research which also builds on the theories of the German "critical theorists".

UQL Cent T57.6.F59 1991

Fonow, Mary M.  and Cook, Judith A.  (1991) Beyond methodology: feminist scholarship as lived research .  Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

A collection of papers on the philosophies and methodologies of feminist research.  Readable, and raises some key issues for consideration in all research.

UQL Cent on order [cip:] HQ1180.B49 1991

Foster, Michael (1972) The theory and practice of action research in work organisations.  Human Relations , 25, 529-556.

  UQL Cent PER H1.H8

Fransella, Fay and Dalton, Peggy (1990) Personal construct counselling in action.  London: Sage.

Counselling applications of personal construct theory and repertory grid.

UQL Cent BF637.C6F735 1990

Fransella, Fay, and Bannister, Don (1977) A manual for repertory grid technique .  London: Academic Press.

A theory and method for applying personal construct theory and repertory grid in research.

UQL Cent Ug BF698.8.R38F72 1977

Fransella, Fay, and Thomas, Laurie F., eds.  (1988) Experimenting with personal construct psychology .  Proceedings of the sixth international congress held at Churchill College, Cambridge, England, Aug.  5-9, 1985.  London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

UQL Cent Ug BF698.9.P47E96 1988

• French, Wendell, and Bell, Cecil H.  (1990) Organisation development: behavioural science interventions for organisational improvement , fourth edition.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Probably the bible in its field.  Set firmly within an action research framework, it gives a good mix of history, theory and practice.

UQL Ug HD38.F69 1990

Frost, Peter J.  and Stablein, Ralph E., eds.  (1992) Doing exemplary research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

  UQL Cent H62.D617 1992

Gepson, J., Martinko, M., and Belina, J.  (1981) Nominal group techniques.  Training and Development Journal , Sept., 78-81.

Nominal group technique or NGT or nominal group process is a small group data collection method.  People are first allowed individual thinking time, and then each person is asked for a contribution.  The contributed items are usually written down, for example on butcher paper, for subsequent use.  Can be used within an action research study as a participative data collection process.

UQL Cent PER HF5549.A2T7

Geuss, R.  (1981) The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school.  Cambridge .  England: Cambridge University Press.

  UQL Cent HM24.G482 1981

•• Glaser, Barney G.  and Strauss, Anselm L.  (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research .  Chicago.: Aldine

  An important seminal work.

UQL Cent Biol HM48.G43 1968

Glass, G.V.  and Ellet, F.S., Jr.  (1980) Evaluation research.  Annual Review of Psychology , 31, 211-228.

The Annual Review carries reviews of evaluation every few years.  You can amuse yourself by noting how much fashions change.

Glidewell, J.C.  (1989), The entry problem in consultation.  In McLennan, R., ed., Managing organisational change .  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  UQL Cent HD58.8.M375 1989

Golembiewski, R.T., Proehl, C.W.  and Sink, D.  (1982) Estimating the success of OD applications.  Training and Development Journal , 36, 86-95.

A successful attempt to change culture, using an approach in the general style of action research.

Gonzales Casanova, Pablo, tr.  Susan Beth Kapilian and Georganne Weller (1981) The fallacy of social science research: a critical examination and new qualitative model .  New York: Pergamon Press.

  UQL Cent H62.G594 1981

Goodall, H.L.  Jr.  (1984) The status of communication studies in organisational contexts: one rhetorician’s lament after a year-long odyssey.  Communication Quarterly , 32(2), 133-147.

" Traditional research methods ...tend to encourage simplistic, reductionist assumptions and explanations ...  usually at the expense of more complex interpretive possibilities" [p135]

Greene, J., and McClintock, C.  (1985) Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues.  Evaluation Review , 9(5), 523-545.

Triangulation is the use of multiple research methods simultaneously to increase rigour.

UQL Cent PER HM1.E8

Grundy, Shirley (1982) Three modes of action research.  Curriculum Perspectives , 2(3), 23-24.

The three forms Shirley Grundy describes are technical (a research-centred approach), practical (similar to process consultancy), and emancipatory (which removes the distinction between researcher and participant).

[Not UQL]

Grundy, S.  (1987), Curriculum: product or praxis ? London: Falmer Press.

  UQL Cent Ug Thatcher LB2806.15.G78 1987

• Guba, Egon G., ed.  (1990) The paradigm dialog .  Newbury Park: Sage.

Although it is not apparent in much undergraduate psychology teaching, the positivist research paradigm is being challenged by a variety of other approaches, including in the hard sciences which academic psychology often tries to emulate.  This book of readings identifies some of the alternatives and addresses some of the issues.  The writers are, generally, anti-positivist in their approaches.

UQL Cent H61.P29 1990

Guba, E.  and Lincoln, Y.  (1981), Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A precursor to the evaluation methodology later names "fourth generation evaluation".

UQL Cent Ug AZ191.G8 1981

•• Guba, Egon G.  and Lincoln, Yvonna S.  (1989) Fourth generation evaluation .  Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage

A detailed description and justification for an approach to evaluation which is very similar to participatory action research.

UQL Cent AZ191.G82 1989

• Gummesson, Evert (1991) Qualitative methods in management research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

A wide-ranging examination of qualitative research, its philosophy and practice, with reference to management research.

UQL Cent Biol HD30.4.G85 1991

Heller, F.A.  (1970), Group feedback analysis as a change agent.  Human Relations , 23, 319-333.

Group feedback analysis or GFA is a structured action research method which provides a small-group substitute for survey feedback.  Heller’s approach is focussed more on research than action, and isn’t particularly cyclic, but does involve the participants directly in interpreting the data they provide.  It is not difficult to convert it to a more action-oriented method without surrendering the research outcomes.

Heller, F.A.  (1976), Group feedback analysis as a method of action research.  In A.W.  Clark, Experimenting with organisational life .  New York: Plenum.

An account of the practical use of group feedback analysis, which Heller devised.  The joint pursuit of action and research outcomes is evident in this report.

Herman, Joan L.; Morris, Lynn Lyons; and Fitz-Gibbons, Carol Taylor (1987) Evaluator’s handbook , 2nd edition.  Newbury Park: Sage.

UQL Ug QTO H61.H455 1987

Hermann, S.M.  and Korenich, M.  (1977), Authentic management: a gestalt orientation to organisations and their development .  Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

If a consultant can adopt the openness and directness in relationships that Gestalt psychology recommends, this provides a firm foundation for effective consultancy.  A refreshing account, as timely now as when it was written.

UQL Cent Ug HD58.8.H47 1977

Heron, J.  (1989) The facilitators’ handbook , London: Kogan Page.

A readable account of the theory and practice of group facilitation, it also includes a useful overview of stages of group development.  Material on experiential learning, and facilitating learning groups, is also covered.

UQL Cent HM134.H46 1989

House, Ernest R.  (1980) Evaluating with validity .  Beverly Hills: Sage.

UQL Cent Ug H62.H64 1980

House, Ernest R.  (1990) An ethics of qualitative field studies.  In Egon S.  Guba, ed., The paradigm dialog .  Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.

Huck, S.W.  and Sandler, H.M.  (1979) Rival hypotheses: alternative interpretations of data-based conclusions .  New York: Harper and Row.

A large collection of published studies for which alternative interpretations can be offered.

UQL Cent Ug H61.H87 1979

• Jackson, Michael C.  (1991) Systems methodology for the management sciences .  New York: Plenum.

Presents and critiques a number of systems-based intervention methods: systems theory, soft systems methodology, cybernetics, critical systems, operational research, and creative problem solving.

UQL Cent T56.N46 1987

• Jick, T.D.  (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action.  Administrative Science Quarterly , 24, 602-611.

An important paper on the virtues of combining several research methods within a single study to increase rigour.

UQL Cent PER HD28.A25

Kemmis, Stephen (1991) Improving education through action research.  In O.  Zuber-Skerritt, Action research for change and development .  Aldershot: Gower.  [pp 57-75]

Kemmis, Stephen; and McTaggart, Robin, eds.  (1988) The action research planner , third edition.  Victoria: Deakin University.

Stephen Kemmis and Robin McTaggart teach action research to educators at Deakin University.  Their approach is participative and critical.  They are also probably one of the important reasons which education is one of the more active disciplines in the use of action research in Australia.  They tend not to be accepting of approaches other than their own, and you will find it useful to supplement this valuable resource with other reading in the area.

UQL Cent Ug Biol Thatcher LB1028.24.K46 1988

•• Kirk, Jerome and Miller, Marc L.  (1986) Reliability and validity in qualitative research .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

A discussion of the issues of reliability and validity as they apply in qualitative research.  Advances the argument that qualitative research often achieves greater validity (especially ecological validity) at the cost of reduced reliability.  A highly recommended overview of rigour in qualitative research methods.

UQL Cent Ug Herston GN346.4.K57 1986

Kolb, D.  (1984), Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development .  Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.

A research-based account of the experiential learning cycle, and its history.  Integrates the work of many of the key early names in learning theory.  More academic than practical, but nevertheless useful for practical understanding.

UQL Cent Phys Thatcher LB1067.K631984

Kress, George (1988) Marketing research (third edition).  Prentice-Hall, London.

This book describes various techniques used in marketing research to collect and analyse data.  Many of the techniques can be used for other qualitative research purposes.

[Not UQL?]

Krueger, Richard A.  (1988) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

UQL Cent Herston H62.K754 1988

•• Kuhn, T.S.  (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions , 2nd edition.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A scientific paradigm isn’t abandoned because it has holes in it.  Only when a better alternative appears to be available is a paradigm abandoned.

UQL Cent Ug Phys ...  Q121.I5V.2NO.2 1970

Lakatos, I.  (1972), Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs.  in Lakatos, I.  and Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the growth of knowledge , London: Cambridge University Press.

Scientific ideologies consist of a foundation, which will be defended vigorously, and peripheral beliefs which can be changed in the light of disconfirming evidence.  The foundation beliefs are often not testable.

UQL Cent Ug Thatcher Q175.I514 1965

Lakatos, Imre; and Musgrave, A., eds.  (1972) Criticism and the growth of knowledge .  London: Cambridge University Press.

Papers on the epistemology of science, with some emphasis on post-positivist and related approaches.

Lave, Charles A., and March, James G.  (1975) An introduction to models in the social sciences .  New York: Harper & Row.

If you are interested in marrying conceptual and empirical analysis, this book is worth reading.

UQL Cent H61.L342 1975

Lawler, E.E.  (1985), Challenging traditional research assumptions.  In E.E.  Lawler, A.M.  Mohrman, S.A.  Mohrman, G.E.  Ledford, and T.G.  Cummings, eds., Doing research that is useful for theory and practice .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [1-17].

•• Lawler, Edward E., III; Mohrman, A.M.  Jr.; Mohrman, S.A.; Ledford, G.E.  Jr.; and Cummings, T.G., eds.  (1985) Doing research that is useful for theory and practice .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Some of the leading qualitative researchers in North America identify the issues and compare notes on their experience.  Underlying many of the papers is a concern that many of the research methods that are required in the field have still to establish their legitimacy in the eyes of mainstream research.

UQL Cent HD58.7.D65 1985

Lewin, Kurt (1946) Action research and minority problems.  Journal of Social Issues , 2, 34-46.

Kurt Lewin is the person usually credited with the development of action research as a participative, cyclic research approach directed towards both research and action.

Lewin, K.  (1948), Resolving social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics .  New York: Harper.

Lewin wrote surprisingly little, but was very influential on the whole social and organisational change movement with what he wrote.  He advocated a group-based, participative approach to change, and is credited (with some others) of developing action research as a research paradigm.  This is a collection of some of his papers.

UQL Cent HM251.L474 1948

Lincoln, Yvonna S.  and Guba, Egon G.  (1985) Naturalistic inquiry .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

UQL Cent B828.2.L56 1985

Linn, Robert L.  and Erickson, Frederick (1990) Qualitative methods .  London: Collier Macmillan.

UQL Cent LB1028.25.U6L55 1990

• Lofland, John and Lofland, Lyn H.  (1984) Analysing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis , 2nd edition.  Wadsworth, Belmont, Ca.

Probably the most widely known and used introductory text on qualitative research approaches using participant observation.  I don’t think I would risk using participant observation as a prominent part of a psychological thesis, but it’s a technique which can be a useful adjunct to other qualitative methods.

UQL [1971 edition] Cent Ug ArchMus HM48.L63 1971

Lynch, K.B.  (1983) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation: two terms in search of meaning.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 5, 461-464.

UQL Cent PER LB2805.E365

Manning, Kathleen (1992) A rationale for using qualitative research in student affairs.  Journal of College Student Development , 33(2), 132-136.

Qualitative methods are used to research student affairs.  The paper discusses reasons for using qualitative methods, and addresses some issues of concern.  It concludes that qualitative research methodology reflects and parallels the complexity and richness of the field studied.

• Marshall, Catherine, and Rossman, Gretchen B.  (1989) Designing qualitative research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

An introductory overview, sufficiently detailed for use as a guide during the design of research.

UQL Cent H62.M277 1989

Martin, Paul & Bateson, Patrick (1986) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide .  Cambridge University Press.

About measuring animal behaviour, though it has other applications.

UQL Biol QL751.M255 1986

Martin, P.R.  (1989), The scientist practitioner model and clinical psychology: time for change? Australian Psychologist , 24(1), 71-92.

English and Australian university psychology departments are still committed to the scientist-practitioner model of professional training.  It does not appear to lead to practitioners reading or doing much research.  An empirical study (cf.  Barlow et al, 1984, for similar US findings).

•• McCracken, Grant (1988) The long interview .  Newbury Park: Sage.

In depth interviewing is a common initial data-collection technique in qualitative research, and in field research and intervention generally.  This discusses how, and also relates it to issues in qualitative research generally.  It is worth reading both for its discussion of the long interview, and for the overview it provides of key issues in qualitative research.

UQL Cent H61.28.M37 1988

McDonald, Geoffrey T.  (1974) Factorial ecology of the Brisbane urban area, report submitted to the Dept.  of Urban and Regional Development.  St Lucia: Department of Geography, University of Queensland.

A method for putting together a random sample in Brisbane by choosing a proportion of subjects from various suburbs and then selecting at random within those suburbs.

UQL ArchMus QTO HT169.A82B745 1974

McKernan, J.  (1991), Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and measures for the reflective practitioner .  London: Kogan Page.

McTaggart, Robin (1991) Action research: a short modern history .  Geelong, Vic: Deakin University.

As the title says, a short modern history.  The emphasis is on action research within education.

UQL Cent Biol LB1028.24.M32 1991

McTaggart, Robin (1992) Study a graduate course in participatory action research: an initiative in interactive global pedagogy .  Posted from [email protected] to list EDAD-L <[email protected]> 2 Oct 1992.  [Also available as topic 133, Deakin online course , on the conference ed.online on the Pegasus network <peg.apc.org>.]

This electronic document, posted to a mailing list and on electronic conferences (newsgroups, in the AARNet world) describes an online course in action research first offered in February 1993 by Deakin University.

Merriam, Sharan B.  (1988) Case study research in education: a qualitative approach .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

UQL Thatcher LB1028.M396 1988

Miles, M.  (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis.  Administrative Science Quarterly , 24, 590-595.

•• Miles, Matthew B.  and A.  Michael Huberman (1984) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods .  Newbury Park: Sage.

A convenient handbook which gathers together in one place a number of methods for qualitative data analysis.  The descriptions are detailed and practical.

UQL Cent QTO H62.M437 1984

• Miller, Delbert Charles (1991) Handbook of research design and social measurement , 5th edition.  Newbury Park: Sage.

UQL Cent H62.M44 1991

• Morgan, David L.  (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

Focus groups (= focussed group interviews) are a regular tool for market research.  They are one of a series of techniques which can begin in open-ended fashion and the become more focussed as they progress.  They can be used for qualitative research generally, as this practical account demonstrates.  In some respects they combine some of the advantages of interviewing in focussing the discussion, while collecting information in a social situation rather than from an individual informant.

UQL Cent Herston H61.28.M671988

Morgan, Gareth, ed.  (1983) Beyond method: strategies for social research .  Beverly Hills: Sage.

UQL Cent Ug H62.B474 1983

Moustakas, Clark (1990) Heuristic research: design, methodology, and applications .  Newbury Park: Sage.

Moustakas describes a very reflective, self-oriented form of research in which illumination arises from self-dialogue.  He offers a six-stage process: initial engagement, immersion, incubation, illumination, explication, and creative synthesis.  This process bears some resemblance to other non-positivist research methodologies.

UQL Cent BD260.M68 1990

Neimeyer, Robert A.  (1985) The development of personal construct psychology .  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

UQL Cent BF698.9.P47N45 1985

Neuman, William Lawrence (1991) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches .  Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

UQL Ug HM48.N48 1991

Noblit, George W.  and Hare, R.  Dwight (1988) Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies .  Newbury Park: Sage.

Describes a qualitative equivalent of meta-analysis, techniques for combining the results of several studies.

UQL Cent GN345.N63 1988

• Oja, Sharon Nodie and Smulyan, Lisa (1989) Collaborative action research: a developmental approach .  London: Falmer Press.

Deals with methods and techniques for collaboration in action research.  It provides more attention to ways of involving stakeholders than many books in the field.

UQL Ug LB1028.24.O39 1989

• Patching, David (1990) Practical soft systems analysis .  London: Pitman.

Written more from a practitioner than academic viewpoint, this is a step-by-step account of each of the 7 stages of Checkland’s model, and some hints which appear to be based on experience in the field.  Some other systems models are also described.  If you were going to carry out a soft systems analysis without knowing much about it, this would provide you with an easy-to-follow guide.

UQL Cent QA402.P37 1990

Patton, M.Q.  (1986), Utilisation-focussed evaluation , 2nd edition.  Beverly Hills: Sage.

The first edition (1978) of this book was probably what made Patton a household name in qualitative evaluation.  All of his work is readable, and much of it is interesting and even entertaining.

UQL Cent Herston H62.P322 1986

Patton, M.Q.  (1982), Practical evaluation .  Beverly Hills: Sage.

UQL Cent Herston H62.P32 1982

Patton, Michael Q.  (1986) How to use qualitative methods in evaluation .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

UQL Cent Herston H62.P3216 1987

•• Patton, Michael Q.  (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods , second edition.  Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.

An entertaining and practical account of qualitative research methods in general, and qualitative evaluation in particular.  Although somewhat polemical in tone, the book nevertheless presents a compelling defence of the use of qualitative data in some circumstances.

UQL Cent Ug H62.P3218 1990

Peters, M., and Robinson, V.  (1984) The origins and status of action research.  Journal of Applied Behavioural Science , 20(2), 113-124.

UQL Biol Econ PER H1.J53

Phillips, Denis C.  (1987) Philosophy, science, and social inquiry: contemporary methodological controversies in social science and related applied fields of research .  Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Taking into account the work of recent leading philosophers, this book canvasses the issues which are being addressed when the scientific status of social research is debated.  The views of Feyerabend and Lakatos are considered, as well as Winch, Kuhn and Popper.

UQL Cent H62.P4626 1987

Phillips, Denis C.  (1992) The social scientist’s bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defences of, naturalistic social science .  Oxford: Pergamon.

A critical and carefully argued examination of hermeneutics, qualitative research, and other current isms in science.  A balanced examination, mostly readable and almost always interesting.  Chapter 4, "New philosophy of science", is especially worth reading: p51: "...  it can no longer be claimed that there are any absolute authoritative foundations upon which scientific knowledge is based".

[cip:] H61.P542 1992

Phillips, Derek L.  (1971) Knowledge from what?: theories and methods in social research .  Chicago: Rand McNally.

A critique, sometimes savage, of the methods typically used in social research, including surveys and interviews.

UQL Cent Ug Thatcher HM48.P45 1971

• Reason, Peter, ed.  (1988) Human inquiry in action: developments in new paradigm research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

Papers on a variety of collaborative research methods.  Between them they identify the issues, discuss some of the problems, and provide examples of participative research.

UQL Cent HM251.H7945 1988

Reville, M.  (1989), An evaluation of the Australian Traineeship System Clothing Machinist program: a new application of systems methodology , Unpublished dissertation, University of Queensland Department of Psychology.

Richardson, Laurel (1990) Writing strategies: reaching diverse audiences .  Newbury Park: Sage.

How to write up qualitative reports.

[Not UQL?] PN145.R47 1990

Riley, Judith (1990) Getting the most from your data: a handbook of practical ideas on how to analyse qualitative data .  Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services.

UQL Ug H62.R52 1990

Rogers, Everett M.  (1983) Diffusion of innovations , third edition.  New York: Collier-Macmillan.

A compendious account of the diffusion of new farming practices, collated from a massive literature review.  It draws on a wider literature than just rural innovation, and is a valuable resource for all change agents.  It also presents a summary of the likely progress of attempts at innovation, summarised in a five-stage process: awareness Æ interest Æ trial Æ evaluation Æ action.  The second edition is by Rogers and Shoemaker.

UQL Biol HM101.R571983

Rossi, Peter Henry, and Freeman, Howard E.  (1989) Evaluation: a systematic approach .  Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.

UQL Cent Herston Ug Qto H62.R666 1989

Rutman, L.  (ed.) (1984) Evaluation research methods: a basic guide , second edition.  Beverly Hills: Sage.

A collection of papers on evaluation methods.

UQL Cent [1977] H62.E891977 [cip:] H62.E85 1984

Sackman, Harold (1975) Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting and group process .  Lexington, Mass.: Heath

A brief, well-documented, highly-critical review of delphi, which is a group decision making method which has promise for qualitative research.  This book also had the unfortunate effect that it killed delphi as a method for decades.  It is only now that delphi is beginning to be used once again (and that perhaps partly because many people don’t read material over a decade old).

UQL Cent HM73.S23 1975

Sanford, N.  (1981) A model for action research, in Reason, P.  and Rowan, J., eds., Human inquiry: a source book of new paradigm research , New York: Wiley.

UQL Cent Ug HM251.H794 1981

Schatzman, L.  and Strauss, A.L.  (1989), Entering into relationships.  In McLennan, R., ed., Managing organisational change .  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

• Schein, Edgar H.  (1988) Process consultation: its role in organisation development, Volume 1 , Second edition, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

A highly recommended account of the process-consultation approach to change, this clear and readable account integrates a lot of complex material in understandable and applicable form.

UQL Ug HD69.C6S28 1988

• Scholtes, Peter R.  and other contributors (1988) The team handbook: how to use teams to improve quality .  Madison, Wis.: Joiner Associates, PO Box 5445, Madison WI 53705-0445)

A very team- and people-oriented account, also very readable, of techniques for total quality management or TQM.  One of the best books of its kind, it has wider application.

UQL Cent HD66.S37 1988

Schön, Donald A.  (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , New York: Basic Books.

UQL ArchMus HD8038.A1S35 1983

•• Schön, Donald A.  (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

How do practitioners best learn? Through reflection, Schön argues on the basis of much experience.  This is valuable reading for any professional, or anyone involved in educating other professionals.  Its readability is a bonus.

UQL Cent Ug Thatcher LC1059.S45 1987

Scriven, M.  (1972), Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation.  Evaluation Comment , 13, 1-7.

There has been some debate about the appropriateness of goal-based evaluation, led by Scriven.  Compare this to Stufflebeam (1972) and Scriven (1991) on the same topic.

UQL Cent PER LB3051.E9

• Scriven, Michael (1991) Evaluation thesaurus , fourth edition.  Newbury Park: Sage.

If you want to know just about anything about evaluation you can probably find it somewhere here.  It is written encyclopedia style, with a long series of alphabetical entries.  It contains introductory and more advanced material, and much of it is interesting and readable despite the format.

UQL [1981:] Cent REF AZ191.S37 1981

• Sechrest, Lee and Figueredo, A.J.  (1993) Program evaluation.  In L.W.  Porter and M.R.  Rosenzweig, eds., Annual Review of Psychology , vol 44.  Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.  [645-674]

This review of program evaluation attributes many of the current changes in evaluation methodology to the pressures of social change.  It lists five fundamental issues in program evaluation: how programs develop; how researchers learn about social science; how programs can be valued; how social science knowledge is used; and the practice of evaluation.

Senge, Peter M.  (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation .  New York: Doubleday.

A beautiful application of systems concepts to explain why social systems are so hard to change and why they develop their peculiar dynamics.  Uses systems concepts to develop an explanation of organisational dynamics based on nests of self-fulfilling prophecies.  Organisational in orientation, but with wider application.

UQL on order

Shadish, William R., Jr., Cook, Thomas D., and Leviton, Laura C.  (1991) Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice .  Newbury Park: Sage.

Within a broader discussion this book presents the views of some of the key theorists in the field of program evaluation.  Included are Michael Scriven, Donald Campbell, Carol Weiss, Joseph Wholey, Robert Stake, Lee Cronbach, and Peter Rossi.

UQL Cent H62.S433 1991

Shaffir, William B.  and Stebbins, Robert A.  (1991) Experiencing fieldwork: an inside view of qualitative research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

A collection of papers, mostly interesting and information, on fieldwork.  They are grouped under the four phases of getting in, learning the ropes, maintaining relationships, and leaving and staying in touch.  In most instances the assumption seems to be that ethnographic methods will be used: that is, that writing-up occurs after the data collection is over.  Allowing for that, it is a practical collection which does not overlook the importance of the relationships formed.

UQL Cent H62.E93 1991

Snyder, C.W.  (personal communication).  Lectures in PY801: Methodology and evaluative skills, The University of Queensland, 1976{?].

Stainback, Susan, and Stainback, William (1988) Understanding and conducting qualitative research .  Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children.

An introduction to qualitative research, fairly systematic in its approach.  A sufficiently-detailed guide to be useful for those relatively unfamiliar with qualitative research methods.

UQL Cent Ug HA29.S774 1988

Steckler, Allan, et.  al (1992) Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction.  Health Education Quarterly , 19(1), 1-8.

Compares qualitative and quantitative approaches, identifies their strengths, and discusses several ways of integrating them.

UQL Herston PER RA440.A1H4

Steers, R.M.  (1975) Problems in the measurement of organisational effectiveness.  Administrative Science Quarterly , 20, 546-558.

Steier, Frederick, ed.  (1991) Research and reflexivity .  London: Sage

There is a body of opinion in social research that knowledge is a social construction.  Researchers therefore are partners with their informants in discovering what they discover.  It follows, then, that the researcher and her/his research process require investigation as part of the study.  This collection of papers explores reflexivity, mostly from a practical and methodological viewpoint.

[Not UQL?] H61.R46

Stewart, David W.  and Shamdasani, Prem N.  (1990) Focus groups: theory and practice .  Newbury Park: Sage.

UQL catalogued.  On order?

Stewart, Valerie and Stewart, Andrew, with Fonda, Nickie (1981) Business applications of repertory grid .  London: McGraw-Hill.

A description of applications of personal construct theory and repertory grid methodology in corporate settings.

UQL Cent BF698.8.R38S7 1981

Stone, Eugene F.  (1986) Research methods in industrial and organisational psychology: selected issues and trends.  In C.L.  Cooper and I.T.  Robertson, International review of industrial and organisational psychology 1986 .  New York: Wiley.

A strong advocate of quantitative and experimental approaches to research in industrial and organisational psychology.

UQL Cent Ug PER HF5548.7.I57

Strauss, Anselm (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists .  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The emphasis is on how to analyse and interpret qualitative data.

UQL Cent H61.S8824 1987

• Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques .  Newbury Park: Sage.

This books presents a reasonably detailed description of a particular approach to data collection.  It particularly emphasises interpretation and theory building.  Grounded theory is theory closely related to field data: without using their particular method, you may find that the issues you discuss have relevance to your own research.

UQL Cent HA29.S823 1990

Stufflebeam, D.L.  (1972) Should or can evaluation be goal free? Evaluation Comment , 13, 4-5.

Compare Scriven (1972, 1991).

UQL Cent PER LB 3051.E9

Suchman, E.A.  (1967), Evaluative research: principles and practice in public service and social action programs .  New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

As with most of the early accounts of evaluation, it was seen as research rather than intervention.  The title "evaluation research" was common at the time, and reveals the orientation.  Compare this, for instance, to the more recent review article by Cook and Shadish (1986).

UQL Cent Ug Herston H61.S888 1967

Susman, G.  (1983) Action research: a sociotechnical systems perspective.  In G.  Morgan, ed., Beyond method .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

Susman, G., and Evered, R.  (1978) An assessment of the scientific merit of action research.  Administrative Science Quarterly , 23(4), 582-603.

Argues for the legitimacy of action research as science by locating its philosophical bases in praxis (e.g.  Habermas), hermeneutics (i.e.  alternating between whole and parts in a dialectic process), existentialism (choice and values as part of action), process philosophies, and phenomenology (subjective experience as the basis of knowledge).

Taylor, Steven J.  (1984) Introduction to qualitative research methods: the search for meanings , 2nd edition.  New York: Wiley.

UQL HM24.B612 1984

Tesch, Renata (1990) Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools .  London: Falmer Press.

UQL Cent H62.T37 1990

Thompson, Briony M., Donohue, K.J., and Waters-Marsh, T.F.  (1992) Qualitative and quantitative approaches to understanding managers’ perceptions of organisational environments .  Paper presented at the 27th Australian Psychological Society Annual Conference, Armidale, September 1992.

A study in which quantitative and qualitative techniques complemented each other.  The qualitative technique was convergent interviewing, which added to the data available from quantitative approaches.

Todd, J.  (1983) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action, Van Maanen, J., ed.  Qualitative methodology .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

UQL Cent Ug Herston H62.Q35 1983

Ulrich, W.  (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy .  Bern: Haupt.

UQL Cent BJ1031.U47 1983

van Beek, P.G.H.  (1989), Managing knowledge systems involving QDPI: an application of soft system analysis to three case studies within the Queensland Department of Primary Industries .  University of Queensland.  Dept.  of Agriculture, Thesis, MAgrSt.

UQL Biol THESIS THE7078

Van Maanen, John, ed.  (1983) Qualitative methodology .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

A collection of papers, updated from a special edition of Administrative Science Quarterly, on different aspects and applications of qualitative methods.  Almost all are readable; some present a carefully-argued case for using their particular form of qualitative methodologies.  Van Maanen’s final epilogue is well worth reading.

Van Maanen, John; Dabbs, James M.; and Faulkner, Robert R.  (1982) Varieties of qualitative research .  Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

UQL Cent HD30.4.V36 1982

Van Maanen, John; Manning, Peter K.; and Miller, Marc L.  (1986) Qualitative research methods series.  Newbury Park: Sage.

This isn’t a book or journal.  It’s an extremely valuable series of monographs on qualitative research.  Those that I have read combine attention to practicability with theoretical soundness and readability.  For example, see Fielding and Fielding (1986), Kirk and Miller (1986), McCracken (1988), Richardson (1990), Weller and Romney (1988), and Wolcott (1990).

Some in UQL, various call numbers

Wadsworth, Yoland (1984) Do it yourself social research .  Melbourne: Victorian Council of Social Service and Melbourne Family Care Association.

An easy-to-read account written primarily for lay researchers.

UQL Cent HM48.W31 1984

Wadsworth, Yoland (1991) Everyday evaluation on the run .  Melbourne: Action Research Issues Assn.  Inc.

A very practical account which says a lot in few pages.

• Walker, Robert, ed.  (1985) Applied qualitative research .  Gower, Aldershot.

As well as presenting some general principles of qualitative research, this collection of papers describes some particular techniques.  Those addressed include depth interviews, group interviews, participant observation, and projective techniques in market research.  There is a final paper on evaluation qualitative research.

UQL Ug Herston Gatton H62.A626 1985

Warren, Carol A.B.  (1988) Gender issues in field research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

UQL Ug Herston H62.W283 1988

Watson, Richard B.  (1992) The nature and construction of conceptual models in soft systems methodology.  In C.S.  Bruce and A.M.  Russell, Transforming tomorrow today (2nd World Congr.  on Action Learning).  Brisbane: ALARPMA.  [423-426]

Soft systems methodology requires developing an ideal model to achieve the same functions that the studied systems intends to achieve.  This is, in my view, the least robust stage in Checkland’s process.  This paper offers some guidelines on how to go about it.

Weber, Robert Philip (1990) Basic content analysis .  Newbury Park: Sage.

UQL Cent Ug H61.W422 1990

Weller, Susan C.  & Romney, A.  Kimball (1988) Systematic data collection .  Newbury Park: Sage.

This document sits on the border between qualitative and quantitative research.  That is, it is directed primarily to techniques which can be used to collect qualitative data and then categorise and interpret it, typically as frequencies.

[Not UQL?] H62.W415 1988

• Whyte, William Foote (1991) Participatory action research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

A collections of papers, some of them case studies, of research conducted using participatory action research.  A complete section deals with research in agriculture.

UQL Cent H62.P295 1990

•• Whyte, William Foote (1991) Social theory for action: how individuals and organisations learn to change .  Newbury Park: Sage.

An account of an action research approach to the management of change, from one of the leading writers in the field.  The emphasis is on participative action research in agricultural and organisational settings, using methods which integrate theory and practice.

UQL Biol H62.W457 1991

Williams, David D., ed.  (1986) Naturalistic evaluation .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

UQL Cent H62.A1N4NO.30

Winter, Richard (1989) Learning from experience: principles and practice in action research .  London: Falmer Press.

Discusses the principles of action research, and then presents some examples to illustrate the approach.  The main focus is on educational research, but the issues addresses have wider relevance.

UQL Ug LB1028.24.W55 1989

•• Wolcott, Harry F.  (1990) Writing up qualitative research .  Newbury Park: Sage.

This is a well-crafted account of how to go about writing up qualitative research reports, including theses.  It is full of practical hints and encouragement while recognising that good writing is usually the result of careful rewriting and rewriting and rewriting.  Much good research is spoiled by being poorly written: this offers some ways of doing justice to the research.

UQL Cent T11.W65 1990

Wortman, P.M.  (1983) Evaluation research: a methodological perspective.  Annual Review of Psychology , 34, 223-260.

Yeaton, William H., and Wortman, Paul M., eds.  (1984) Issues in data synthesis .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

UQL Cent H62.A1N4NO.24

Yin, R.  (1984) Case study research: design and methods .  Beverly Hills: Sage.

UQL Cent Ug Herston H62.Y56 1989

Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun, ed.  (1991a) Action research for change and development .  Aldershot: Gower.

Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt is the centre of a network of people developing action research methods in Queensland.  She is a prolific writer in the field, and is currently [1993] attached to the Tertiary Education Institute at the University of Queensland, where she has originated a number of action research studies in higher education.  Her approach is based on that of Kemmis and McTaggart (see above), supplemented by a substantial European literature.  This is a collection of papers, preceded by Ortrun’s own introduction.

Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun, ed.  (1991b) Action learning for improved performance .  Brisbane: Aebis.

Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun (1992a) Action research in higher education: examples and reflections .  London: Kogan Page.

Drawing on the experience of many action research and action learning projects at the University of Queensland, the author demonstrates how learning and teaching can be improved by academics supported by professional development staff.

Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun (1992b) Professional development in higher education: a theoretical framework for action research .  London: Kogan Page.

Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt is currently at the Tertiary Education Institute at the University of Queensland.  She here details her own theoretical model of action research as she applies it in higher education.  She draws on Revan’s theories of action learning, Kelly’s Personal Construct theory, Kolb’s theory of experiential learning, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School of philosophy. 

    [  contents   ]

My intention in this afterword is twofold.  I wish to make my own biases more explicit.  I also wish to identify some issues which I chose to omit from the body of the paper.  In addition, this gives me the opportunity to provide some background.

The body of this document began as a brief account of how to do an action research thesis.  It was triggered by a number of events happening in close proximity.  Preparing a paper on qualitative evaluation led me to think about the sources of responsiveness in action research.  Helping to start a series of action research case studies in monograph form built on this thinking.  Then two events happened in close proximity.  A number of fourth year theses I supervised received almost uniformly low marks although in my eyes their quality varied substantially.  And I volunteered to provide some documentation for coursework masters dissertations using action research, to accompany a similar document for other forms of thesis which my colleague Phyllis Tharenou prepared.

This particular document originated as a document for people enrolled in the fourth year of a qualification in psychology.  That was the urgent priority at the time.  After completing it, I realised it was suitable for coursework masters dissertations too.  By then it had become larger than intended; but perusing it persuaded me that the length was justified by the topic.

In its present form it is intended for anyone planning an action research study for thesis purposes.  Its target audience consists of people enrolled at the University of Queensland, but some readers convinced me that its application was wider than that too.  I had some very encouraging responses from people outside psychology, and at other educational institutions.  So here it is.

I enjoyed enormously the reading and thinking that accompanied it.  Writing it was rather more painful.  In particular I found myself being selective in the information I provided.  I think the reasons for my selectivity have something important to say about the paradigm conflict between the dominant experimental and quasi-experimental scientific culture and the counter-cultures which include action research.

Within current philosophy of science it appears that positivism has been replaced by post-positivism (and a range of other philosophies).  It is also clear that a large and growing literature in the social sciences is taking those alternative philosophies as a starting point for developing an alternative paradigm.  I had caught glimpses of this at a conference on organisational culture during 1991.  Some participants actually argued that there was no longer any objective grounds on which one research paradigm could be preferred over another.  The only remaining criterion, they thought, was aesthetics.  This seemed to me an inadequate basis on which to gauge a theory or explanation (though I prefer the aesthetic to the unaesthetic).

I experienced some difficulty in writing this document.  Part of it was to do with the conclusions being drawn in some of the social science literature -- conclusions which to my mind were not adequately supported by the arguments which accompanied them.  The other was in deciding what to include in this paper.  I can use both of them to illustrate my own position rather more fully than I have chosen to do in the body of this document.  In other words, this afterword constitutes something of my own reflection on what preparing this paper has meant to me.  To take them in turn...

Although it would take a longer argument than I am prepared to present here, it is clear to me that positivist research is superb for some research settings and purposes, and clearly unsuited to others.  It seems to me, further, that any research paradigm has to take some of its beliefs on trust.  In other words, every research paradigm is instructed to some extent by ideology.  For many researchers this ideology appears to be held in large part as a set of beliefs without reason.  In saying this, I don’t think I am really adding anything to views which appear as mainstream views in the current philosophical literature.

My experience suggests to me that social change requires a non-positivist approach.  This was confirmed by my reading.  It appears that many academics who find themselves in the role of change agents are led eventually towards a more flexible approach to research.  However, while in sympathy with the actual processes they used in field settings, I thought their supporting arguments were sometimes inadequate.

Constructivism provides one example.  The positivist view, or so it seems to me, depends upon reality being directly knowable.  Many researchers are opposing this with a view that our theories and language inevitably colour what we see.  From this starting point some of them seem almost to conclude that one view is therefore as good as another.  Both of these opposing positions appear to me to be polarities which beg resolution.

It seems apparent to me that my mental frameworks colour what I observe.  But just as apparent, reality has some influence on my perception.  To phrase it differently, my frameworks and reality each account for some of the variance in what I perceive.  What is needed, it seems to me, is a philosophy that allows both of these to have a role.  I was encouraged to find such views expressed in the philosophical literature.

The disappointment is that, for the most part, these are not issues in the psychological literature.  Presumably psychological researchers read and think and observe.  But it doesn’t reveal itself often in their literature or, as far as I can tell, in their teaching.  This was part of my difficulty.  How was I to address this clearly and economically? Eventually I decided to omit it from this version of the paper.

More salient for me was the issue of how to address a counter-cultural paradigm at all.  There are compelling reasons, I believe, to offer an alternative research paradigm for some purposes .  Action research provides such a paradigm, and offers practical benefits to practitioners.  (It is clear enough, as I explain in the body of this paper, that most practitioners don’t do much formal research.  The most likely reason is that they don’t find the research methods they have been taught to be easily integrated into their practice.) But action research is counter-cultural.  How was I to provide enough information for people doing action research theses without raising the defensiveness of some of my colleagues?

I eventually settled for a sort of dishonesty: a dishonesty, at least, of being selective in what I said.  I have focussed on providing enough information for people to make an informed choice about their research methodology.  If they decide to use action research, I think I have provided enough guidance for them to reduce the risk in so doing.

What I have chosen not to do is...: to provide a sufficient challenge to some research paradigms for some purposes; to confront the unstated (and often inadequately-substantiated) ideology which many practitioners have been taught; to label the teaching of that ideology as the unintended indoctrination which I believe it is.  For their survival, I think, people writing theses have to be dishonest in presenting their own views.  To placate their examiners they have to make a weaker argument than logic allows.

To paraphrase the social psychologist Elliot Aronson, if someone knows something is true, without knowing the reasons, then evidence is irrelevant.  Confronting such views with evidence and good argument is unproductive.  By not addressing the philosophical foundations of research, it seems to me that some methodological teaching inevitably has become something of an ideology.

However, in this afterword let me try to make my own views clearer than I chose to in the body of this document.  It seems to me that to judge a research paradigm, it is reasonable to take into account the purpose of the research.  To test precise causal hypotheses, fully experimental designs seem most appropriate.  It then makes sense to conduct the research in a laboratory where you have sufficient control over the variables.  On the other hand, traditional research methods seem ill-suited to achieving understanding and change simultaneously in the field.  For these, it seems more appropriate to use a research paradigm which can cope with fuzziness and complexity.

These paradigms don’t have equivalent status.  You can still safely do positivist research (despite the belief of some contemporary philosophers of science that it is dead).  You can have it judged on its merits, or even to some extent sympathetically.  There are venues in which it can be published.  It has high status.

Action research? It isn’t understood.  It’s difficult to do well.  It’s not easily publishable.  It just happens to be a far better paradigm in some situations and for some purposes , as other paradigms are in other situations and for other purposes.

Aronson, E.  (1972) The social animal , New York: Freeman.

"...if research is to jointly contribute to theory and practice, it must be designed to accomplish this objective.  It cannot simply be taken as a matter of faith that adhering to certain scientific research principles will lead to jointly useful research.  Indeed, it may be that adhering to principles that were designed to produce research that contributes to scientific knowledge will make it certain that this research will not contribute to practice." [p 3] E.E.  Lawler (1985), Challenging traditional research assumptions.  In E.E.  Lawler, A.M.  Mohrman, S.A.  Mohrman, E.E.  Ledford and T.G.  Cummings, Doing research that is useful for theory and practice .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.     "...scientific observation is theory-impregnated 1.  in the choice of constructs, 2.  in the way constructs are conceptually ‘defined’, 3.  in the theoretical irrelevancies operational representations contain, 4.  in the theory components particular operational instances fail to include, 5.  in the weights implicitly assigned to factors in the multifactorial measures that social scientists invariably use." [p 219] T.D.  Cook and W.R.  Shadish (1986), Program evaluation: the worldly science.  Annual Review of Psychology , 193-232.     "External validity -- that is, the validity of inferences that go beyond the data -- is the crux.  Increasing internal validity by elegant design often reduces relevance." [p 7] Lee J.  Cronbach and associates (1980), Toward reform of program evaluation .  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.     "...science also has many limitations.  Within science there are problems of methodology as we move from the ‘restricted’ sciences (e.g.  physics) to the ‘unrestricted’ sciences (e.g.  biology].  [...] Complexity, in general, and social phenomena, in particular both pose difficult problems for science; neither has it been able to tackle what we perceive as ‘real world problems’ (as opposed to the scientist-defined problems of the laboratory).  " [p 13] P.  Checkland (1981), Systems thinking, systems practice .  Chichester: Wiley.  [  contents   ]  

Bob Dick (1993)  You want to do an action research thesis? Available on line at http://www.aral.com.au/resources/arthesis.html

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples

Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples

Published on June 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on June 22, 2023.

When you start planning a research project, developing research questions and creating a  research design , you will have to make various decisions about the type of research you want to do.

There are many ways to categorize different types of research. The words you use to describe your research depend on your discipline and field. In general, though, the form your research design takes will be shaped by:

  • The type of knowledge you aim to produce
  • The type of data you will collect and analyze
  • The sampling methods , timescale and location of the research

This article takes a look at some common distinctions made between different types of research and outlines the key differences between them.

Table of contents

Types of research aims, types of research data, types of sampling, timescale, and location, other interesting articles.

The first thing to consider is what kind of knowledge your research aims to contribute.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The next thing to consider is what type of data you will collect. Each kind of data is associated with a range of specific research methods and procedures.

Finally, you have to consider three closely related questions: how will you select the subjects or participants of the research? When and how often will you collect data from your subjects? And where will the research take place?

Keep in mind that the methods that you choose bring with them different risk factors and types of research bias . Biases aren’t completely avoidable, but can heavily impact the validity and reliability of your findings if left unchecked.

Choosing between all these different research types is part of the process of creating your research design , which determines exactly how your research will be conducted. But the type of research is only the first step: next, you have to make more concrete decisions about your research methods and the details of the study.

Read more about creating a research design

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

  • Normal distribution
  • Degrees of freedom
  • Null hypothesis
  • Discourse analysis
  • Control groups
  • Mixed methods research
  • Non-probability sampling
  • Quantitative research
  • Ecological validity

Research bias

  • Rosenthal effect
  • Implicit bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Selection bias
  • Negativity bias
  • Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, June 22). Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/types-of-research/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is your plagiarism score.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences.

Quality Assurance in Education

ISSN : 0968-4883

Article publication date: 2 October 2007

The paper seeks to identify the quality characteristics of critical action research and action research theses compared to traditional research thesis writing.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on the literature and the authors' experience with supervising and examining action research theses, the paper identifies key problem areas in the literature and suggests effective strategies for meeting these challenges and avoiding pitfalls through reflective practice and questioning insight. The paper includes sets of crucial questions for higher degree students to address.

The paper presents definitions of and checklists for quality action research, a quality thesis, and a quality action research thesis. It also presents two conceptual models that illustrate the differences between the “research” and thesis “writing” activities and processes in general, and the collaborative core action research in the fieldwork and the critical action research thesis that needs to be the candidate's independent contribution to knowledge in theory and practice.

Originality/value

The definitions, checklists and conceptual models will be useful to postgraduates, supervisors and examiners of action research theses, because they clarify for them the similarities and differences between a traditional thesis in the social sciences and a thesis by action research.

  • Action research
  • Postgraduates

Zuber‐Skerritt, O. and Fletcher, M. (2007), "The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences", Quality Assurance in Education , Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 413-436. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880710829983

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2007, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Action Research vs. Case Study

What's the difference.

Action research and case study are both research methodologies used in social sciences to investigate and understand complex phenomena. However, they differ in their approach and purpose. Action research is a collaborative and participatory approach that involves researchers and practitioners working together to identify and solve practical problems in real-world settings. It aims to bring about positive change and improvement in the context being studied. On the other hand, case study is an in-depth and detailed examination of a particular individual, group, or situation. It focuses on understanding the unique characteristics and dynamics of the case being studied and often involves extensive data collection and analysis. While action research emphasizes practical application and problem-solving, case study emphasizes detailed exploration and understanding of a specific case.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Action research and case study are two widely used research methodologies in various fields. While both approaches aim to gain insights and understanding, they differ in their focus, design, and implementation. This article will explore the attributes of action research and case study, highlighting their similarities and differences.

Action Research

Action research is a participatory approach that involves collaboration between researchers and practitioners to address real-world problems. It emphasizes the active involvement of stakeholders in the research process, aiming to bring about practical change and improvement. Action research typically follows a cyclical process, consisting of planning, action, observation, and reflection.

One of the key attributes of action research is its focus on generating knowledge that is directly applicable to the context in which it is conducted. It aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice by actively involving practitioners in the research process. This participatory nature allows for a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances of the problem being investigated.

Action research often involves multiple iterations, with each cycle building upon the insights gained from the previous one. This iterative approach allows for continuous learning and adaptation, enabling researchers to refine their interventions and strategies based on the feedback received. It also promotes a sense of ownership and empowerment among the participants, as they actively contribute to the research process.

Furthermore, action research is characterized by its emphasis on collaboration and co-learning. It encourages the exchange of ideas and knowledge between researchers and practitioners, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and collective action. This collaborative approach not only enhances the quality of the research but also increases the likelihood of successful implementation of the findings.

In summary, action research is a participatory and iterative approach that aims to generate practical knowledge through collaboration between researchers and practitioners. It focuses on addressing real-world problems and promoting positive change within specific contexts.

Case study, on the other hand, is an in-depth investigation of a particular phenomenon, event, or individual. It involves the detailed examination of a specific case or cases to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject under study. Case studies can be conducted using various research methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis.

One of the key attributes of case study research is its ability to provide rich and detailed insights into complex phenomena. By focusing on a specific case, researchers can delve deep into the intricacies and unique aspects of the subject, uncovering valuable information that may not be easily captured through other research methods.

Case studies are often used to explore and understand real-life situations in their natural settings. They allow researchers to examine the context and dynamics surrounding the case, providing a holistic view of the phenomenon under investigation. This contextual understanding is crucial for gaining a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the subject.

Furthermore, case studies are particularly useful when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly defined. They allow for the exploration of complex and multifaceted issues, enabling researchers to capture the interplay of various factors and variables. This holistic approach enhances the validity and reliability of the findings.

Moreover, case studies can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory in nature, depending on the research questions and objectives. They can be used to generate hypotheses, provide detailed descriptions, or test theoretical frameworks. This versatility makes case study research applicable in various fields, including psychology, sociology, business, and education.

In summary, case study research is an in-depth investigation of a specific phenomenon, providing rich and detailed insights into complex situations. It focuses on understanding the context and dynamics surrounding the case, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of multifaceted issues.

Similarities

While action research and case study differ in their focus and design, they also share some common attributes. Both approaches aim to gain insights and understanding, albeit through different means. They both involve the collection and analysis of data to inform decision-making and improve practice.

Furthermore, both action research and case study can be conducted in naturalistic settings, allowing for the examination of real-life situations. They both emphasize the importance of context and seek to understand the complexities and nuances of the phenomena under investigation.

Moreover, both methodologies can involve multiple data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. They both require careful planning and design to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.

Additionally, both action research and case study can contribute to theory development. While action research focuses on generating practical knowledge, it can also inform and contribute to theoretical frameworks. Similarly, case studies can provide empirical evidence that can be used to refine and expand existing theories.

In summary, action research and case study share common attributes, including their aim to gain insights and understanding, their focus on real-life situations, their emphasis on context, their use of multiple data collection methods, and their potential contribution to theory development.

Action research and case study are two distinct research methodologies that offer unique approaches to gaining insights and understanding. Action research emphasizes collaboration, participation, and practical change, while case study focuses on in-depth investigation and contextual understanding. Despite their differences, both approaches contribute to knowledge generation and have the potential to inform theory and practice. Researchers should carefully consider the nature of their research questions and objectives to determine which approach is most suitable for their study.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

ct-logo

Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper: Unraveling the Distinction in 2023

Are you puzzled in the difference between Thesis and Research Paper? If yes, then have a close look at this blog post to explore everything about the difference between Thesis and Research Paper

In the realm of academia, students and researchers encounter various types of written assignments that require rigorous investigation and analysis. Among these assignments, the thesis and research paper are two common forms of scholarly writing.

While both contribute to the advancement of knowledge and demonstrate a student’s research capabilities, there are distinct differences between them in terms of purpose, scope, originality, structure, evaluation, and length.

Understanding these differences is essential for students embarking on their academic journey or researchers seeking to make meaningful contributions to their respective fields.

By grasping the unique characteristics of a thesis and a research paper, individuals can navigate the academic landscape more effectively, align their research objectives, and tailor their writing to meet the specific expectations of each form of scholarly communication.

In this discussion, we will delve into the dissimilarities between a thesis and a research paper, shedding light on the distinct purposes they serve, the scope of their investigations, the level of originality they demand, the structure they adhere to, the evaluation criteria they face, and the length of time they require for completion.

By examining these aspects, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how a thesis and a research paper differ, allowing students and researchers to approach these academic assignments with greater clarity and confidence.

Whether you are a student embarking on your undergraduate or postgraduate journey, or a researcher striving to contribute to the scholarly discourse in your field, gaining a thorough understanding of the differences between a thesis and a research paper will serve as a valuable guide in effectively formulating research questions, conducting comprehensive investigations, and presenting your findings in a manner that aligns with the expectations of your academic community.

So, let us explore the unique characteristics that set a thesis and a research paper apart, empowering you to navigate the academic landscape and engage in scholarly pursuits with distinction and purpose.

Definition and Purpose of a Thesis

Table of Contents

A thesis is a significant academic document that showcases a student’s in-depth understanding of a particular subject and their ability to conduct independent research.

It is a formal written work that presents original findings, arguments, or theories, aiming to contribute new knowledge to the academic community. A thesis is typically pursued as a requirement for obtaining a higher academic degree, such as a Master’s or Ph.D.

The purpose of a thesis is multifold. Firstly, it serves as a demonstration of the student’s comprehensive understanding of the chosen field of study. It requires an extensive exploration of the existing literature, theories, methodologies, or experiments related to the research topic.

By delving deeply into the subject matter, a thesis allows students to showcase their analytical and critical thinking abilities, as well as their proficiency in synthesizing and evaluating complex information.

Secondly, a thesis aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge within the specific academic discipline. It demands original research and the identification of a research gap, which the student then strives to fill through their investigations.

By conducting thorough research, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing meaningful conclusions, a thesis can offer new insights, propose novel theories, or develop innovative methodologies. Through their contribution, students endeavor to advance the understanding and knowledge within their field of study.

Lastly, a thesis serves as a requirement for obtaining a higher academic degree. It demonstrates the student’s research capabilities and scholarly competence, validating their readiness to contribute to their chosen field as a qualified professional or researcher.

Successful completion of a thesis signifies the mastery of research skills, the ability to work independently, and the capacity to engage in academic discourse.

Overall, a thesis represents a significant academic achievement, reflecting the culmination of a student’s academic journey and their dedication to expanding knowledge within their field. It serves as a testament to their intellectual capabilities, research prowess, and their potential to make meaningful contributions to their respective disciplines.

Definition and Purpose of a Research Paper

A research paper is a scholarly document that presents the results of a study or investigation conducted by a researcher or a group of researchers. It is a written work that focuses on addressing a specific research question, exploring a hypothesis, or investigating a particular topic within a given academic field. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by presenting new insights, analyzing data, or providing a critical analysis of existing information.

Research papers are essential in various academic disciplines, including sciences, social sciences, humanities, and more. They serve as a means to communicate research findings, share knowledge, and engage in scholarly discussions.

Through research papers, researchers aim to advance understanding, challenge existing theories or assumptions, or propose new perspectives on a particular subject.

The primary purpose of a research paper is to contribute to the existing knowledge within a specific field of study. Researchers conduct a thorough review of relevant literature and studies to identify gaps or areas that require further investigation.

They formulate a research question or hypothesis and design a methodology to collect and analyze data that can answer the research question or test the hypothesis. The research paper then presents the findings, interpretations, and conclusions derived from the analysis of the collected data.

Research papers also play a crucial role in the dissemination of knowledge. They provide a platform for researchers to share their findings with the broader academic community.

By publishing research papers in academic journals, presenting them at conferences, or sharing them through other scholarly channels, researchers contribute to the ongoing conversations within their field. Other researchers can build upon the findings, validate or challenge the results, and collectively advance knowledge in a collaborative manner.

Moreover, research papers help researchers develop critical thinking skills, enhance their research methodology expertise, and contribute to their academic and professional growth.

Engaging in the research process, from formulating a research question to conducting data analysis, strengthens researchers’ abilities to think analytically, critically evaluate information, and draw meaningful conclusions. Research papers also provide opportunities for researchers to develop their academic writing skills, allowing them to effectively communicate their research findings and insights.

Difference Between Thesis and Research paper (Tabular Form)

Here’s a comparison between a thesis and a research paper in tabular form:

Please note that the specific characteristics may vary depending on the institution and academic discipline. This table provides a general overview of the key differences between a thesis and a research paper.

Difference Between Thesis and Research paper

Thesis and research paper are two distinct academic documents that have several differences. Here are the key dissimilarities between a thesis and a research paper:

Purpose and Objective

Have a close look at the purpose and objective comparison.

A thesis serves the purpose of demonstrating a student’s in-depth understanding of a subject, showcasing their analytical and critical thinking abilities, and contributing new knowledge to the academic community.

It aims to obtain a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Ph.D. For example, a Ph.D. thesis in biology may involve conducting original research to discover a new species or proposing a novel scientific theory.

Research Paper

The primary purpose of a research paper is to contribute to existing knowledge on a subject and engage in scholarly discussions. It focuses on exploring a research question or hypothesis, presenting findings, and analyzing the collected data.

For example, a research paper in economics may investigate the impact of a specific policy on economic growth by analyzing data from various sources.

Scope and Depth

Have a close look at the scope and depth comparison.

A thesis requires extensive research and an exhaustive exploration of the chosen topic. It involves delving deeply into the existing literature, critically analyzing previous studies, and offering an extensive review of relevant theories, methodologies, or experiments.

The scope of a thesis is broader, aiming to cover various aspects of the chosen field. For example, a thesis in history may involve examining multiple historical events, analyzing primary sources, and comparing different historical interpretations.

While a research paper also requires research, its scope of exploration is usually narrower compared to a thesis. Research papers often focus on addressing specific research questions, providing detailed analysis, or presenting findings within a limited context.

The scope of a research paper is more focused on a specific aspect or angle of the topic. For example, a research paper in psychology may investigate the effects of a particular therapy technique on a specific group of individuals.

Originality and Contribution

Have a close look at the originality and contribution comparison.

A thesis demands original research and substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the field. It requires students to identify a research gap, formulate research questions, and conduct extensive investigations to fill that gap.

A thesis should provide novel insights, theories, or methodologies that contribute to the advancement of the field. For example, a thesis in computer science may involve developing a new algorithm or software application to solve a complex problem.

While a research paper also requires originality, its scope of contribution is typically narrower compared to a thesis. Research papers often focus on addressing specific aspects or angles of a topic, providing detailed analysis, or presenting findings within a limited context.

They may offer new perspectives or interpretations but may not be as extensive in terms of contributing to the overall knowledge in the field. For example, a research paper in sociology may present a new analysis of existing survey data to support or challenge existing sociological theories.

Structure and Formatting

Have a close look at structure and formatting comparison.

A thesis follows a specific structure that includes various sections such as a title page, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices (if applicable).

This structured format provides a comprehensive framework for presenting the research and analysis conducted. Each section has its purpose and contributes to the overall coherence of the thesis.

A research paper usually has a more flexible structure, depending on the field of study and the specific requirements of the assignment or publication. However, it commonly includes sections like a title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, and references.

The structure may vary based on the specific guidelines or preferences of the intended publication. The flexibility allows researchers to adapt the structure to the needs of their study while maintaining the logical flow of information.

Evaluation and Audience

Have a close look at evolution and audience comparison.

A thesis is primarily evaluated by a committee of professors or experts in the field. The evaluation process involves comprehensive scrutiny of the research methodology, data analysis, theoretical frameworks, and the overall contribution to the field.

The audience for a thesis is typically limited to the academic community, including the student’s advisors, faculty members, and fellow researchers. The evaluation focuses on the originality, quality, and depth of the research conducted.

Research papers cater to a broader audience, including scholars, researchers, and professionals in the respective field. They are often evaluated through peer review processes before being published in academic journals or presented at conferences.

The evaluation criteria for research papers may vary depending on the publication or assignment guidelines, but they generally emphasize the clarity of research objectives, methodology, data analysis, and the significance of the findings. The evaluation focuses on the validity and contribution of the research to the existing knowledge.

Length and Time Frame

Have a close look at length and time frame comparison.

A thesis is typically longer in length compared to a research paper. It requires a more extensive investigation and analysis, resulting in a higher word count. The time frame to complete a thesis is also longer, often spanning several semesters or years.

The extended length and timeframe allow students to engage in thorough research, conduct experiments, gather data, and provide a comprehensive analysis of the chosen topic.

Research papers are generally shorter in length compared to a thesis. They focus on specific aspects or angles of a topic, resulting in a relatively shorter word count. The time frame to complete a research paper is shorter, often within a semester or a few weeks.

The shorter length and timeframe require researchers to narrow down their focus and present a concise analysis of the chosen research question.

Have a close look at purpose and objective comparison.

A thesis serves as a culmination of a student’s academic journey, demonstrating their mastery of a subject area and their ability to conduct independent research. It aims to contribute new knowledge, theories, or methodologies to the academic community, advancing the understanding of the chosen field.

The primary objective is to obtain a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Ph.D., and showcase expertise in a specialized area of study.

The primary purpose of a research paper is to communicate the results of a specific study or investigation to the academic community. It aims to contribute to existing knowledge by presenting new findings, interpretations, or analyses on a specific research question or topic.

Research papers can be standalone publications or part of a broader research project, providing insights and contributing to ongoing scholarly discussions.

Have a close look at scope and depth comparison.

A thesis requires a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of a subject, often involving extensive literature review, data collection, and analysis. It typically covers a broader scope within the chosen field, aiming to provide a holistic understanding of the topic and its various aspects.

A thesis often requires a more extensive examination of theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and relevant literature, presenting a well-rounded analysis.

Research papers often focus on a specific aspect or angle of a topic, narrowing down the scope of the study. The depth of exploration in a research paper is more limited compared to a thesis, as it emphasizes detailed analysis and findings related to the specific research question.

While research papers may include literature review and references, the analysis is usually more targeted and specific to the research question being addressed.

Have a close look at originality and contribution comparison.

A thesis requires a higher level of originality and contribution to the field. It should offer new insights, theories, methodologies, or empirical evidence that expand existing knowledge and advance the field of study.

A thesis often addresses a research gap or poses new research questions, aiming to fill a void in the existing body of knowledge.

While research papers also require originality, their contribution is typically more limited in scope. Research papers often build upon existing theories, methodologies, or data, offering new interpretations or perspectives within a specific context.

They may present incremental findings, replication studies, or comparative analyses that deepen understanding in a focused area of study.

A thesis follows a structured format that varies across institutions and disciplines. It typically includes sections such as a title page, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices (if applicable).

The structure ensures logical flow, provides context, and allows for comprehensive presentation of research and analysis.

Research papers also have a flexible structure, but they commonly include sections like a title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, and references. The specific structure may vary based on publication guidelines or the nature of the study.

The structure aims to present the research question, methodology, findings, and analysis in a coherent and understandable manner.

Have a close look at evaluation and audience comparison.

Theses are primarily evaluated by a committee of professors or experts in the field. The evaluation process involves rigorous scrutiny of the research methodology, data analysis, theoretical frameworks, and overall contribution to the field.

The audience for a thesis is typically limited to the academic community, including the student’s advisors, faculty members, and fellow researchers.

Research papers are evaluated through peer review processes before publication or presentation. The evaluation criteria may vary depending on the specific guidelines or intended publication, but they generally assess the clarity of research objectives, methodology, data analysis, and the significance of the findings.

The audience for research papers includes scholars, researchers, and professionals in the respective field, aiming to contribute to ongoing scholarly discussions and inform future research.

Theses are typically longer in length compared to research papers. The word count for a thesis can vary significantly, ranging from tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand words, depending on the level of study and institution’s requirements.

The time frame to complete a thesis is longer, often spanning several semesters or years, allowing for thorough research, data collection, analysis, and the writing process.

Research papers are generally shorter in length compared to theses. The word count for research papers varies depending on the specific requirements of the publication or assignment, but it is typically more concise compared to a thesis.

The time frame to complete a research paper is shorter, often within a semester or a few weeks, necessitating focused research, analysis, and writing within a more limited timeframe.

In conclusion, the difference between a thesis and a research paper lies in their purpose, scope, originality, structure, evaluation, and length. A thesis represents the culmination of a student’s academic journey, aiming to obtain a higher degree and contribute new knowledge to the academic community.

It requires extensive research, in-depth exploration of the chosen topic, and a broader scope that covers various aspects of the field. A thesis demands originality and substantial contribution, often addressing research gaps and presenting novel insights or methodologies.

On the other hand, a research paper focuses on presenting specific findings, interpretations, or analyses within a narrower scope. While it also requires originality, its contribution is usually more limited, building upon existing theories or data to offer new perspectives or interpretations.

Research papers have a flexible structure, adapting to the requirements of the publication or assignment, while the thesis follows a specific and comprehensive format.

Theses are primarily evaluated by a committee of experts in the field, targeting the academic community, while research papers undergo peer review processes for publication and cater to a broader audience of scholars, researchers, and professionals.

Furthermore, the length and time frame differ between the two. Theses are generally longer, spanning several semesters or years, allowing for thorough research and analysis, while research papers are shorter and completed within a semester or a few weeks, requiring focused research and concise presentation of findings.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial for students and researchers to navigate their academic endeavors effectively. Whether one aims to pursue advanced degrees or contribute to scholarly discussions, recognizing the unique characteristics of the thesis and research paper helps in formulating research objectives, selecting appropriate methodologies, and presenting research outcomes in a manner suitable to their intended audience.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main objective of a thesis.

The main objective of a thesis is to demonstrate a student’s in-depth understanding of a subject, showcase their analytical and critical thinking abilities, and contribute new knowledge to the academic community.

Can a research paper be considered a thesis?

No, a research paper and a thesis are distinct academic documents. While both involve research and analysis, a thesis is more comprehensive, requires a higher level of originality, and aims for a higher academic degree.

How long does it take to complete a thesis?

The duration to complete a thesis can vary depending on the program and the nature of the research. It often takes several semesters or years to conduct the necessary research, collect data, analyze findings, and write the thesis.

Who evaluates a thesis?

A thesis is typically evaluated by a committee of professors or experts in the field. They assess the research methodology, data analysis, theoretical frameworks, and the overall contribution to the field.

What is the audience for a research paper?

The audience for a research paper includes scholars, researchers, and professionals in the respective field. Research papers are often published in academic journals or presented at conferences to engage in scholarly discussions.

Similar Articles

How To Do Homework Fast

How To Do Homework Fast – 11 Tips To Do Homework Fast

Homework is one of the most important parts that have to be done by students. It has been around for…

Write assignment introduction

How to Write an Assignment Introduction – 6 Best Tips

In essence, the writing tasks in academic tenure students are an integral part of any curriculum. Whether in high school,…

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

Academia Insider

Differences Between Action Research And Traditional Research Methods

Exploring the realm of research methodologies reveals a stark contrast between action research and traditional research methods. Each approach carries its distinct philosophy, purpose, and application, shaping the way knowledge is pursued and utilised.

This article delves into these differences, offering insights into how each method addresses specific research needs, from theoretical exploration to practical problem-solving, and highlights the implications for researchers and practitioners alike in various fields.

Action Research vs Traditional Research

What is a traditional research.

In the realm of research, traditional methods have long been the backbone of scientific inquiry, particularly in the social sciences.

These methodologies are characterised by a systematic approach to investigating hypotheses through either quantitative or qualitative research methods.

difference between thesis and action research

Quantitative methods involve numerical data and statistical analysis to draw conclusions that may be generalised to broader populations.

Surveys and online surveys are common tools here, where researchers collect data that is later subjected to rigorous statistical scrutiny.

Qualitative research, conversely, delves into the nuances of human behavior and social phenomena through methods like ethnography and focus groups.

This approach aims to uncover deeper insights into the topic of study, providing a rich tapestry of qualitative data that offers a better understanding of the subject matter.

Traditional research often adheres strictly to the scientific method, starting with a clear research question that guides the research process. Researchers then:

  • conduct a literature review,
  • formulate a hypothesis, and
  • embark on data collection and analysis.

This method of research is highly structured and aims to ensure the rigor and unbiased nature of the research findings.

An interesting aspect of traditional research is its ability to utilize mixed methods, blending both quantitative and qualitative research methods to provide a more comprehensive view of the research question.

This mixed-method research approach allows researchers to analyse data from different angles, offering a more inclusive and comparative perspective.

Traditional research’s emphasis on a systematic and rigorous methodology ensures that the research process is thorough and the conclusions drawn are based on solid evidence.

Despite its differences from more applied forms like action research, traditional research remains crucial for advancing knowledge and providing foundational insights that can be applied in real-world applications.

What Is An Action Research?

Unlike traditional research methods that often emphasise statistical analysis and the quest for generalisable findings, action research dives deep into specific, localised inquiries.

difference between thesis and action research

It’s a hands-on research method that researchers utilize to directly impact their area of study. This could be within a classroom setting, aiming to enhance teaching and learning practices.

What makes action research particularly interesting is its collaborative nature. Action researches can involve stakeholders such as:

  • educators, 
  • students, and
  • sometimes even parents.

This type of research can adopt either quantitative or qualitative research methods, or even a mix of both, known as mixed methods research.

Quantitative methods might include surveys with numerical data analysis, while qualitative approaches could involve focus groups or ethnography, providing rich, descriptive insights into the teaching and learning process.

One juicy detail often overlooked is how action research empowers educators to be researchers in their own classrooms.

They collect data, analyse it, and iterate on their methods in a systematic yet flexible manner. This ongoing cycle of action and reflection is key to its methodology.

Action research’s emphasis on collaboration and the learning process itself fosters a community-oriented approach to inquiry.

This isn’t just research for the sake of research; it’s about making a difference, solving a problem, and better understanding the complexities of educational dynamics.

It’s this blend of rigor, relevance, and real-world application that makes action research a compelling and uniquely impactful research approach.

Differences Between Action Research and Traditional Research

Purpose and focus.

Traditional research often revolves around advancing knowledge within a specific field. Using a hypothesis-driven approach, researchers set out to:

  • confirm, or
  • challenge existing theories.

A traditional study in the social sciences might aim to examine the impact of social media on youth self-esteem, using surveys and statistical analysis to draw conclusions.

Conversely, action research is more pragmatic, designed to solve real-world problems. It’s not just about understanding a phenomenon but about enacting change.

Educators, for instance, might use action research to develop new teaching strategies that enhance student engagement, applying qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of their interventions.

Methodology and Approach

Traditional research methodologies are characterized by a systematic, often linear, approach. Researchers:

  • define their question,
  • formulate a hypothesis, and then
  • move on to data collection and analysis.

This process is highly structured, aiming for rigor and reproducibility.

Action research, on the other hand, adopts a cyclical or iterative process. It involves planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

Researchers might implement a new teaching method, observe its effects, reflect on the outcomes, and then adjust the approach based on their findings. This iterative cycle continues until the desired improvement is achieved.

Collaboration and Participation

A distinctive feature of action research is its collaborative nature. It frequently involves a team that might include not just researchers but also practitioners and stakeholders directly affected by the issue under investigation.

This inclusive approach fosters a sense of ownership and ensures that the research findings are directly applicable to the participants’ real-world context.

In traditional research, collaboration exists, but it’s often more confined to academic or scientific communities.

difference between thesis and action research

The research is usually conducted by experts in the field, with participants serving more as subjects of the study rather than active contributors to the research process.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both action and traditional research utilize qualitative and quantitative research methods, but their application can differ markedly.

Traditional research might lean more towards extensive surveys and statistical analysis to ensure findings can be generalized to a larger population.

In contrast, action research may use these methods in more localized and specific contexts, often supplementing them with more qualitative data to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.

Outcome and Application

The outcome of traditional research is typically aimed at contributing to the academic body of knowledge, with findings disseminated through scholarly articles and publications.

These insights might eventually influence policy or practice, but such applications are often a secondary consideration.

Action research aims for immediate application. The goal is to produce actionable insights that can be implemented in the real-world setting where the research is conducted.

difference between thesis and action research

The success of action research is measured by the extent to which it solves the problem it was intended to address, with findings often shared directly with the community involved.

Understanding these differences helps researchers choose the approach best suited to their goals. Whether aiming to contribute to academic discourse or solve a practical issue, knowing the right methodology to employ is key to a successful inquiry.

Action vs Traditional Research Methods

Understanding the nuanced differences between action research and traditional research methods is crucial for researchers and practitioners navigating their investigative journeys.

This comparison sheds light on the distinct paths each methodology carves— from theoretical foundations to practical applications. Whether aiming to expand the academic knowledge base or seeking solutions to real-world challenges, choosing the right approach is key.

Embracing the strengths and acknowledging the limitations of each can lead to more informed, impactful, and meaningful research outcomes.

difference between thesis and action research

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

difference between thesis and action research

2024 © Academia Insider

difference between thesis and action research

  • Key Differences

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

thesis-vs-research-paper

On the other hand, a research paper is analytical, argumentative and interpretative in nature. It involves the pursuit of knowledge and intelligent analysis of the information collected. It contains the idea of the author, often supported by expert opinions, research and information available in this regard.

Whether you are writing a thesis or research paper, they are equally challenging and take a lot of time to prepare. In this post, we will update you on all the points of difference between thesis and  research paper.

Content: Thesis Vs Research Paper

  • Key Elements
  • Thesis Statement

How to start a research paper?

Comparison chart, what is thesis.

The thesis is a document containing the research and findings that students submit to get the professional qualification or degree . It has to be argumentative, which proposes a debatable point with which people could either agree or disagree. In short, it is a research report in writing that contains a problem which is yet to be dealt with.

In a thesis, the researcher puts forth his/her conclusion. The researcher also gives evidence in support of the conclusion.

Submission of the thesis is a mandatory requirement of a postgraduate course and PhD degree. In this, the primary focus is on the novelty of research along with the research methodology.

It is all about possibilities, by introducing several anti-thesis. Also, it ends up all the possibilities by nullifying all these anti-thesis.

Key Elements of Thesis

Key-Elements-of-Thesis

  • Proposition : The thesis propagates an idea, hypothesis or recommendation.
  • Argument : Gives reasons for accepting the proposition instead of just asserting a point of view.
  • Maintenance of argument : The argument should be made cogent enough by providing suitable logic and adequate evidence.

Features of An Ideal Thesis

  • An Ideal thesis is expected to add fresh knowledge to the existing theory.
  • It communicates the central idea of the research in a clear and concise manner.
  • An effective thesis is more than a simple statement, fact or question.
  • It answers why and how questions concerned with the topic.
  • To avoid confusion, it is worded carefully.
  • It outlines the direction and scope of your essay.
  • It gives reasons to the reader to continue reading.

Also Read : Difference Between Thesis and Dissertation

What is Thesis Statement?

A thesis statement is a sentence of one line, usually written at the end of your first paragraph. It presents the argument to the reader.

It is a blueprint of your thesis that directs the writer while writing the thesis and guides the reader through it.

What is Research Paper?

Research Paper is a form of academic writing. It is prepared on the basis of the original research conducted by the author on a specific topic, along with its analysis and interpretation of the findings.

An author generally starts writing a research paper on the basis of what he knows about the topic and seeks to find out what experts know. Further, it involves thorough and systematic research on a particular subject to extract the maximum information.

In short, a research paper is a written and published report containing the results of scientific research or a review of published scientific papers. Here, the scientific research is the primary research article, while the review of a published scientific paper is the review article.

In case of the primary research article, the author of the research paper provides important information about the research. This enables the scientific community members to:

  • Evaluate it
  • Reproduce the experiments
  • Assess the reasoning and conclusions drawn

On the other hand, a review article is written to analyze, summarize and synthesize the research carried out previously.

When a research work is published in a scientific journal, it conveys the knowledge to a larger group of people and also makes people aware of the scientific work. Research work published as a research paper passes on knowledge and information to many people. The research paper provides relevant information about the disease and the treatment options at hand .

To start writing a research paper, one should always go for a topic that is interesting and a bit challenging too. Here, the key to choosing the topic is to pick the one that you can manage. So, you could avoid such topics which are very technical or specialized and also those topics for which data is not easily available. Also, do not go for any controversial topic.

The researcher’s approach and attitude towards the topic will decide the amount of effort and enthusiasm.

Steps for writing Research Paper

Steps-for-writing-research-paper

The total number of pages included in a Research Paper relies upon the research topic. It may include 8 to 10 pages, which are:

  • Introduction
  • Review of Literature
  • Methodology
  • Research Analysis
  • Recommendations

Also Read : Difference Between Research Proposal and Research Report

Key Differences Between Thesis and Research Paper

  • A thesis implies an original, plagiarism-free, written academic document that acts as a final project for a university degree of a higher level. But, Research Paper is a novel, plagiarism-free long essay. It portrays the interpretation, evaluation or argument submitted by a researcher.
  • The thesis acts as a final project. Whereas a research paper is a kind of research manual of journals.
  • The length of the thesis is around 20,000 to 80,000 words. On the contrary, the length of the research paper is relative to the study.
  • The thesis focuses on the central question or statement of an intellectual argument that entails further research. On the contrary, the research paper is concerned with proving the central argument.
  • The purpose of submitting the thesis is to get the degree or professional qualification. It also presents the knowledge of the candidate in the respective field. Conversely, the aim of publishing research papers is to prove credibility and contribute knowledge in the respective field.
  • While the student submits the thesis to the educational committee or panel of professors who review it. In contrast, scientists and other researchers read and review the research paper.
  • Preparation and completion of thesis is always under the guidance of a supervisor. For submission of the thesis, the university assigns a supervisor to each student, under whose guidance the thesis must be completed. As against, no supervisor is appointed as a guide in case of a research paper.
  • The thesis contains a broader description of the subject matter. In contrast, the research paper contains a narrow description of the subject matter.

Once the research paper is published, it increases the fellowship and job opportunities for new researchers. On the other hand, thesis writing will enable the students to get the desired degree at the end of the course they have opted.

You Might Also Like:

thesis vs dissertation

Dr. Owenga says

February 23, 2023 at 2:38 pm

So good and informative. These are quite beneficial insights. Thanks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences

Profile image of Margaret Fletcher

2007, Quality Assurance in Education

Related Papers

Performing educational research: Theories, methods …

Julie Davis

difference between thesis and action research

IJAR – International Journal of Action Research

Søren Frimann

International Journal of Action Research

Olav Eikeland

How do we conceptualise, communicate, and describe Action Research in alanguagewhich expresses and corresponds adequately to the basic assumptions behind Action Research?Our call for papers tried to pinpoint some very specific challenges for Action Research as we see it: As Action Researchers, when writing applications for research funds, when communicating research insights, when developing knowledge in collaboration with stakeholders, when reasoning and voicing knowledgeinresearch communities, we often feel forced to navigate in alanguage field foreign to our Action Research activity,and compelled to use conventional, mostly interpretive social research terminology to legitimise our creation of knowledge as research. This languagefield is, to alarge extent, still based on aprincipal division of labour between intellectual and manual work, knower and known, and researchera nd researched, creating ahorizon of meaning linked to astill dominantbut old-fashioned and monopolised knowledge management regime. This terminology reflects an institutionalised but hardly validated division of labour in the understanding of social knowledgegeneration, othering the subjects of study. Thereby the more basic and radical knowledge generation processes happening in certain forms of Action Research are made almost invisible and stretched between the "inner" language of contextualknowledge and value production, and other, "outer" ways of communicating scientific knowledge and research insights presumed as valid by aw ider research community and in society at large. Nevertheless, Action Research gains popularity in different professions and professional studies, in management and organszation studies, community development work, and in other areas concerned with practical relevance, application, and development. The situation reflects societal changes concerning the social distribution of education and knowledge generation, from having been monopolised in specialised academic institutions to becoming much more socially distributed. As indicated, social or human knowledge development and creation need to come to its own, and find its own form, similarly to how natural science and technology have come to their own during modernity. Bringing social and human knowledgetoits own, however, does not mean imitation or emulation of natural science. Extantf orms of inquiry all need to be critically examined, transformed,a nd adjusted to the radically practice based creation of knowledge in core Action Research. Certain forms of practitioner Action Research are already making progress in their attempts at this by connecting to more colloquial and prevalent understandings of experience which do not operate within the divisions of conventional research. These attempts are si

Action Research

Davydd J Greenwood , Bob Dick

Social Research Update

Colin Todhunter

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum Qualitative Social Research

Victoria J Palmer

The article explores and discusses whether we as action researchers are undermining or subverting our own intuitions and intentions, or at least not doing justice to it, when mixing a) learning and exploration through individual and collective action and reflection, with b) elements from conventional researchmethods. The article'sb asic question: Can the intentions and resultsf rom a) be reduced to and validated fully or partly through b) conventional methods?C an we save the scientific legitimacyo fa ction research by ultimately resorting to conventional methods and theories?W hat does action research uniquely add in relation to conventional learning, knowledge generation, and change projects?W ed iscuss some challengesr aised by questions like these, and suggest ways of handling them. After exploring ways of being "seduced" by conventional methods, we concludebyrecommending ag noseology to replace ao ne-dimensional epistemology, and by explaining and recommending the procedure of immanent critique as aw ay of developing insights and competencies from the inside of practices; i. e. a genuinely Action research method.

The thesis as a bulky ‘tome’ with a traditional structure - literature review, methodology, research design, findings and conclusions - is a concept under increasing challenge. Recently, I completed a doctoral action research project based on environmental education in a primary school. However, I found that trying to force the action research process into a linear writing structure was an unsatisfactory experience. After much anxiety and considerable experimentation, I resolved the problem of ‘fit’ between action research and the traditional thesis format by creating an alternative architecture based on each of the action research cycles. While still producing a bulky ‘doorstopper’, I feel this structure is a better reflection of the way the study evolved. This paper outlines this new architecture and discusses its rationale. It also challenges other action researchers to innovate and experiment with the ways they represent their research work. License for such innovation is rapidly developing especially with the advent of digital thesis production and performative theses. I see no reason why action researchers cannot be leaders in the creation of new forms of practice about how research theses and dissertations are represented in the academy.

Oxford Review of Education

Martyn Hammersley

The core idea of action research is that there should be an intimate relationship between inquiry and practical or political activities. A challenge to this idea based on an influential ancient Greek hierarchy between theoria and praxis is examined. The contrary, pragmatist, notion that all inquiry arises out of human activity is accepted, but not the instrumentalism sometimes derived from it. Research must be treated as operating on the same plane as any other activity, but the relationship between the two will always be less than isomorphic, and this creates the prospect of severe tensions. These can be managed contextually in two ways: by subordinating inquiry, or by making it primary. Both are legitimate, but any attempt to treat the two components of action research as equal faces contradiction.

Kath Fisher

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Finance and Economics

Ben Moussa Kais

Risa Purnamasari

Journal of Case Reports

Pikee Saxena

Journal of Biomechanics

Chung-huang Yu

yesya ichsaniah putri

Dewald Noeth

Thyroid Research

Giovanni Targher

Investigación y Ciencia de la Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Germán Gómez Tenorio

Ieva Kalnača

Cell Death &amp; Differentiation

Mireille Laforge

The Journal of General Physiology

Brenda Russell

Paula Moreno

Jose Krieger

Science Journal of Energy Engineering

noma talibi soumaila

Applied Physics A

arockiadoss thevasahayam , Jothi Narayanan

Intermetallics

Osamu Umezawa

IEEE Communications Letters

Behrad Soleimani

Chemical Geology

Jan Hertogen

REVISTA ELETRÔNICA PESQUISEDUCA

Beatriz Blandy

Rafael Cruz Gaitan

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Wendy Kelso

Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi

YUNUS EMRE GÜR

Acta Patristica et Byzantina

Arnauld Nicogossian

RELATED TOPICS

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

MIM Learnovate

Traditional Research vs. Action Research

difference between thesis and action research

Two different methods have emerged in the field of research methodologies: action research and traditional research.

Each has its own purposes and characteristics. Understanding the differences among these methods is essential for both researchers and practitioners.

Let’s examine the subtle differences between action research and traditional research.

  • Table of Contents

Traditional Research

Traditional research is characterized by a quest for conclusions. Researchers construct theories, conduct controlled experiments, and abstain from intervening in the implementation phase of the solutions derived from their studies.

Most people agree that the goal of traditional research is to draw conclusions.

First, a theory is developed; second, statistical analysis is necessary; and third, the researcher stays out of the solution’s implementation phase.

Traditional research involves face-to-face interactions between researchers and participants, proving more effective than online research. Widely used for qualitative research, it captures participants’ emotional reactions. Theory development and testing occur separately from the research process. Knowledge in teaching and learning is often developed outside schools or by individuals not directly involved in education.

Traditional research methodologies encompass both quantitative and qualitative approaches. In quantitative research, statistical analysis is employed to dissect observed components and draw comparisons with other elements. On the other hand, qualitative research delves into exploring the spectrum of participants’ behaviors, often conducted with small groups and leading to descriptive analysis.

Examples of Traditional Research

1. medical clinical trial.

A controlled experiment testing the efficacy and safety of a new medication using a randomized control group and a placebo group.

2. Laboratory Experiment in Physics

Investigating the properties of materials under specific conditions, adhering to a predefined hypothesis and controlled variables.

3. Survey on Consumer Preferences

Conducting a large-scale survey to gather quantitative data on consumer preferences for a particular product or service.

Action Research

In action research, academics collaborate with organizations in an active manner to produce knowledge that is actionable and long-lasting, as well as workable answers to challenging socioeconomic issues.

Action researchers are always looking for ways to test new approaches and unusual data collection techniques within the framework of epistemology and the social sciences in order to better their local communities and organizations.

Developed by psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s, action research is a dynamic process that integrates theory, practice, and community-school-based participants to address practical issues. It aims to improve teaching and learning through an extensive and repetitive process involving collaboration among educators, parents, community activists, and university-based colleagues. This type of research is conducted with the purpose of advocating for changes or influencing policies, directly benefiting school practitioners and the district involved.

Action research is a pragmatic and real-world method employed in professional inquiries within a social context. Educational professionals may utilize this approach to assess the effectiveness of an existing teaching method or explore the viability of a new approach for potential classroom use. Action research can be carried out through mixed methods and can be conducted by an individual or collaboratively with other professionals.

Examples of Action Research

1. improving classroom teaching.

A teacher collaborates with colleagues to identify and implement new teaching strategies, continually reflecting on and adjusting their methods based on student outcomes.

2. Community Health Initiative

Researchers work closely with a local community to assess health needs, develop interventions, and implement changes to improve overall community health.

3. Organizational Change in a Business

A company employs action research to identify and address operational challenges, involving employees in the process of problem-solving and continuous improvement.

  • Traditional research is centered on drawing conclusions and forecasting outcomes through the examination of theories within controlled laboratory environments. In contrast, action research contributes to the progression of knowledge at the individual, organizational, and community levels by actively engaging in the development of solutions for socio-economic and business-related challenges.
  • In traditional research, the research question originates from theoretical discussions and existing literature. On the other hand, in action research, the research question is formulated based on practical experiences and actions, taking into account institutional parameters.
  • In traditional research, data collection methodologies are inflexible and predominantly managed through a statistical data analysis approach. In contrast, action research employs mixed data collection approaches with a focus on qualitative data collection to validate the analysis and findings. Action research emphasizes collaboration to instigate and oversee changes in an organization and address real-world challenges.
  • Traditional research typically targets academia as its primary and most common audience. In contrast, action research has a broader and more inclusive audience, resulting from a collaborative cyclic process involving the researcher, the organization, and the community.
  • In traditional research, knowledge is produced through the testing of theories. In action research, knowledge is derived from practical experience, making it more sustainable and closely linked to achievable actions.
  • In the traditional research approach, the research role is directive and often viewed as an individualistic approach. In contrast, in action research, the researcher actively engages in facilitating the research project, taking on the roles of a practitioner, catalyst, and collaborator with the organization throughout the entire process.
  • In traditional research, the learning methodology is primarily disciplinary-oriented, emphasizing specific academic disciplines. On the other hand, in action research, the learning process is mutual, involving both the researcher and the organization. This approach emphasizes integration between disciplines, fostering a collaborative and interdisciplinary learning experience.
  • In the traditional research approach, the action on findings is minimal and may not occur, or if it does, it might take place in isolation. On the contrary, in action research, actions are incorporated into the mainstream and integrated within institutional processes and systems. In action research, the researcher actively engages in facilitating the research project as a practitioner, playing a hands-on role in the implementation of solutions.
  • In the traditional research approach, the results are owned by the researcher, group of researchers, or academic institution. In contrast, in action research , results are characterized by shared ownership, involving collaboration and joint responsibility among the researcher, the organization, and the community.

Other articles

Please read through some of our other articles with examples and explanations if you’d like to learn more about research methodology.

  • PLS-SEM model
  • Principal Components Analysis
  • Multivariate Analysis
  • Friedman Test
  • Chi-Square Test (Χ²)
  • Effect Size

 Methodology

  • Research Methods
  • Quantitative Research
  • Qualitative Research
  • Case Study Research
  • Survey Research
  • Conclusive Research
  • Descriptive Research
  • Cross-Sectional Research
  • Theoretical Framework
  • Conceptual Framework
  • Triangulation
  • Grounded Theory
  • Quasi-Experimental Design
  • Mixed Method
  • Correlational Research
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Stratified Sampling
  • Ethnography
  • Ghost Authorship
  • Secondary Data Collection
  • Primary Data Collection
  • Ex-Post-Facto
  •   Dissertation Topic
  • Thesis Statement
  • Research Proposal
  • Research Questions
  • Research Problem
  • Research Gap
  • Types of Research Gaps
  • Operationalization of Variables
  • Literature Review
  • Research Hypothesis
  • Questionnaire
  • Reliability
  • Measurement of Scale
  • Sampling Techniques
  • Acknowledgements

difference between thesis and action research

Related Posts

9 qualitative research designs and research methods, tips to increase your journal citation score, types of research quiz, difference between cohort study and case control study, convenience sampling: method and examples, difference between cohort and panel study, why is a pilot study important in research, panel survey: definition with examples, what is panel study, what is a cohort study | definition & examples.

Comments are closed.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a dissertation and a thesis.

The words ‘ dissertation ’ and ‘thesis’ both refer to a large written research project undertaken to complete a degree, but they are used differently depending on the country:

  • In the UK, you write a dissertation at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a thesis to complete a PhD.
  • In the US, it’s the other way around: you may write a thesis at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a dissertation to complete a PhD.

Frequently asked questions: Knowledge Base

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.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

  • Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
  • Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research , you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

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.

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

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

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

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

Harvard referencing uses an author–date system. Sources are cited by the author’s last name and the publication year in brackets. Each Harvard in-text citation corresponds to an entry in the alphabetised reference list at the end of the paper.

Vancouver referencing uses a numerical system. Sources are cited by a number in parentheses or superscript. Each number corresponds to a full reference at the end of the paper.

A Harvard in-text citation should appear in brackets every time you quote, paraphrase, or refer to information from a source.

The citation can appear immediately after the quotation or paraphrase, or at the end of the sentence. If you’re quoting, place the citation outside of the quotation marks but before any other punctuation like a comma or full stop.

In Harvard referencing, up to three author names are included in an in-text citation or reference list entry. When there are four or more authors, include only the first, followed by ‘ et al. ’

A bibliography should always contain every source you cited in your text. Sometimes a bibliography also contains other sources that you used in your research, but did not cite in the text.

MHRA doesn’t specify a rule about this, so check with your supervisor to find out exactly what should be included in your bibliography.

Footnote numbers should appear in superscript (e.g. 11 ). You can use the ‘Insert footnote’ button in Word to do this automatically; it’s in the ‘References’ tab at the top.

Footnotes always appear after the quote or paraphrase they relate to. MHRA generally recommends placing footnote numbers at the end of the sentence, immediately after any closing punctuation, like this. 12

In situations where this might be awkward or misleading, such as a long sentence containing multiple quotations, footnotes can also be placed at the end of a clause mid-sentence, like this; 13 note that they still come after any punctuation.

When a source has two or three authors, name all of them in your MHRA references . When there are four or more, use only the first name, followed by ‘and others’:

Note that in the bibliography, only the author listed first has their name inverted. The names of additional authors and those of translators or editors are written normally.

A citation should appear wherever you use information or ideas from a source, whether by quoting or paraphrasing its content.

In Vancouver style , you have some flexibility about where the citation number appears in the sentence – usually directly after mentioning the author’s name is best, but simply placing it at the end of the sentence is an acceptable alternative, as long as it’s clear what it relates to.

In Vancouver style , when you refer to a source with multiple authors in your text, you should only name the first author followed by ‘et al.’. This applies even when there are only two authors.

In your reference list, include up to six authors. For sources with seven or more authors, list the first six followed by ‘et al.’.

The main difference is in terms of scale – a dissertation is usually much longer than the other essays you complete during your degree.

Another key difference is that you are given much more independence when working on a dissertation. You choose your own dissertation topic , and you have to conduct the research and write the dissertation yourself (with some assistance from your supervisor).

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

  • An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
  • A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
  • A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

At the bachelor’s and master’s levels, the dissertation is usually the main focus of your final year. You might work on it (alongside other classes) for the entirety of the final year, or for the last six months. This includes formulating an idea, doing the research, and writing up.

A PhD thesis takes a longer time, as the thesis is the main focus of the degree. A PhD thesis might be being formulated and worked on for the whole four years of the degree program. The writing process alone can take around 18 months.

References should be included in your text whenever you use words, ideas, or information from a source. A source can be anything from a book or journal article to a website or YouTube video.

If you don’t acknowledge your sources, you can get in trouble for plagiarism .

Your university should tell you which referencing style to follow. If you’re unsure, check with a supervisor. Commonly used styles include:

  • Harvard referencing , the most commonly used style in UK universities.
  • MHRA , used in humanities subjects.
  • APA , used in the social sciences.
  • Vancouver , used in biomedicine.
  • OSCOLA , used in law.

Your university may have its own referencing style guide.

If you are allowed to choose which style to follow, we recommend Harvard referencing, as it is a straightforward and widely used style.

To avoid plagiarism , always include a reference when you use words, ideas or information from a source. This shows that you are not trying to pass the work of others off as your own.

You must also properly quote or paraphrase the source. If you’re not sure whether you’ve done this correctly, you can use the Scribbr Plagiarism Checker to find and correct any mistakes.

In Harvard style , when you quote directly from a source that includes page numbers, your in-text citation must include a page number. For example: (Smith, 2014, p. 33).

You can also include page numbers to point the reader towards a passage that you paraphrased . If you refer to the general ideas or findings of the source as a whole, you don’t need to include a page number.

When you want to use a quote but can’t access the original source, you can cite it indirectly. In the in-text citation , first mention the source you want to refer to, and then the source in which you found it. For example:

It’s advisable to avoid indirect citations wherever possible, because they suggest you don’t have full knowledge of the sources you’re citing. Only use an indirect citation if you can’t reasonably gain access to the original source.

In Harvard style referencing , to distinguish between two sources by the same author that were published in the same year, you add a different letter after the year for each source:

  • (Smith, 2019a)
  • (Smith, 2019b)

Add ‘a’ to the first one you cite, ‘b’ to the second, and so on. Do the same in your bibliography or reference list .

To create a hanging indent for your bibliography or reference list :

  • Highlight all the entries
  • Click on the arrow in the bottom-right corner of the ‘Paragraph’ tab in the top menu.
  • In the pop-up window, under ‘Special’ in the ‘Indentation’ section, use the drop-down menu to select ‘Hanging’.
  • Then close the window with ‘OK’.

Though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, there is a difference in meaning:

  • A reference list only includes sources cited in the text – every entry corresponds to an in-text citation .
  • A bibliography also includes other sources which were consulted during the research but not cited.

It’s important to assess the reliability of information found online. Look for sources from established publications and institutions with expertise (e.g. peer-reviewed journals and government agencies).

The CRAAP test (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose) can aid you in assessing sources, as can our list of credible sources . You should generally avoid citing websites like Wikipedia that can be edited by anyone – instead, look for the original source of the information in the “References” section.

You can generally omit page numbers in your in-text citations of online sources which don’t have them. But when you quote or paraphrase a specific passage from a particularly long online source, it’s useful to find an alternate location marker.

For text-based sources, you can use paragraph numbers (e.g. ‘para. 4’) or headings (e.g. ‘under “Methodology”’). With video or audio sources, use a timestamp (e.g. ‘10:15’).

In the acknowledgements of your thesis or dissertation, you should first thank those who helped you academically or professionally, such as your supervisor, funders, and other academics.

Then you can include personal thanks to friends, family members, or anyone else who supported you during the process.

Yes, it’s important to thank your supervisor(s) in the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation .

Even if you feel your supervisor did not contribute greatly to the final product, you still should acknowledge them, if only for a very brief thank you. If you do not include your supervisor, it may be seen as a snub.

The acknowledgements are generally included at the very beginning of your thesis or dissertation, directly after the title page and before the abstract .

In a thesis or dissertation, the acknowledgements should usually be no longer than one page. There is no minimum length.

You may acknowledge God in your thesis or dissertation acknowledgements , but be sure to follow academic convention by also thanking the relevant members of academia, as well as family, colleagues, and friends who helped you.

All level 1 and 2 headings should be included in your table of contents . That means the titles of your chapters and the main sections within them.

The contents should also include all appendices and the lists of tables and figures, if applicable, as well as your reference list .

Do not include the acknowledgements or abstract   in the table of contents.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, follow these steps:

  • Apply heading styles throughout the document.
  • In the references section in the ribbon, locate the Table of Contents group.
  • Click the arrow next to the Table of Contents icon and select Custom Table of Contents.
  • Select which levels of headings you would like to include in the table of contents.

Make sure to update your table of contents if you move text or change headings. To update, simply right click and select Update Field.

The table of contents in a thesis or dissertation always goes between your abstract and your introduction.

An abbreviation is a shortened version of an existing word, such as Dr for Doctor. In contrast, an acronym uses the first letter of each word to create a wholly new word, such as UNESCO (an acronym for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

Your dissertation sometimes contains a list of abbreviations .

As a rule of thumb, write the explanation in full the first time you use an acronym or abbreviation. You can then proceed with the shortened version. However, if the abbreviation is very common (like UK or PC), then you can just use the abbreviated version straight away.

Be sure to add each abbreviation in your list of abbreviations !

If you only used a few abbreviations in your thesis or dissertation, you don’t necessarily need to include a list of abbreviations .

If your abbreviations are numerous, or if you think they won’t be known to your audience, it’s never a bad idea to add one. They can also improve readability, minimising confusion about abbreviations unfamiliar to your reader.

A list of abbreviations is a list of all the abbreviations you used in your thesis or dissertation. It should appear at the beginning of your document, immediately after your table of contents . It should always be in alphabetical order.

Fishbone diagrams have a few different names that are used interchangeably, including herringbone diagram, cause-and-effect diagram, and Ishikawa diagram.

These are all ways to refer to the same thing– a problem-solving approach that uses a fish-shaped diagram to model possible root causes of problems and troubleshoot solutions.

Fishbone diagrams (also called herringbone diagrams, cause-and-effect diagrams, and Ishikawa diagrams) are most popular in fields of quality management. They are also commonly used in nursing and healthcare, or as a brainstorming technique for students.

Some synonyms and near synonyms of among include:

  • In the company of
  • In the middle of
  • Surrounded by

Some synonyms and near synonyms of between  include:

  • In the space separating
  • In the time separating

In spite of   is a preposition used to mean ‘ regardless of ‘, ‘notwithstanding’, or ‘even though’.

It’s always used in a subordinate clause to contrast with the information given in the main clause of a sentence (e.g., ‘Amy continued to watch TV, in spite of the time’).

Despite   is a preposition used to mean ‘ regardless of ‘, ‘notwithstanding’, or ‘even though’.

It’s used in a subordinate clause to contrast with information given in the main clause of a sentence (e.g., ‘Despite the stress, Joe loves his job’).

‘Log in’ is a phrasal verb meaning ‘connect to an electronic device, system, or app’. The preposition ‘to’ is often used directly after the verb; ‘in’ and ‘to’ should be written as two separate words (e.g., ‘ log in to the app to update privacy settings’).

‘Log into’ is sometimes used instead of ‘log in to’, but this is generally considered incorrect (as is ‘login to’).

Some synonyms and near synonyms of ensure include:

  • Make certain

Some synonyms and near synonyms of assure  include:

Rest assured is an expression meaning ‘you can be certain’ (e.g., ‘Rest assured, I will find your cat’). ‘Assured’ is the adjectival form of the verb assure , meaning ‘convince’ or ‘persuade’.

Some synonyms and near synonyms for council include:

There are numerous synonyms and near synonyms for the two meanings of counsel :

AI writing tools can be used to perform a variety of tasks.

Generative AI writing tools (like ChatGPT ) generate text based on human inputs and can be used for interactive learning, to provide feedback, or to generate research questions or outlines.

These tools can also be used to paraphrase or summarise text or to identify grammar and punctuation mistakes. Y ou can also use Scribbr’s free paraphrasing tool , summarising tool , and grammar checker , which are designed specifically for these purposes.

Using AI writing tools (like ChatGPT ) to write your essay is usually considered plagiarism and may result in penalisation, unless it is allowed by your university. Text generated by AI tools is based on existing texts and therefore cannot provide unique insights. Furthermore, these outputs sometimes contain factual inaccuracies or grammar mistakes.

However, AI writing tools can be used effectively as a source of feedback and inspiration for your writing (e.g., to generate research questions ). Other AI tools, like grammar checkers, can help identify and eliminate grammar and punctuation mistakes to enhance your writing.

The Scribbr Knowledge Base is a collection of free resources to help you succeed in academic research, writing, and citation. Every week, we publish helpful step-by-step guides, clear examples, simple templates, engaging videos, and more.

The Knowledge Base is for students at all levels. Whether you’re writing your first essay, working on your bachelor’s or master’s dissertation, or getting to grips with your PhD research, we’ve got you covered.

As well as the Knowledge Base, Scribbr provides many other tools and services to support you in academic writing and citation:

  • Create your citations and manage your reference list with our free Reference Generators in APA and MLA style.
  • Scan your paper for in-text citation errors and inconsistencies with our innovative APA Citation Checker .
  • Avoid accidental plagiarism with our reliable Plagiarism Checker .
  • Polish your writing and get feedback on structure and clarity with our Proofreading & Editing services .

Yes! We’re happy for educators to use our content, and we’ve even adapted some of our articles into ready-made lecture slides .

You are free to display, distribute, and adapt Scribbr materials in your classes or upload them in private learning environments like Blackboard. We only ask that you credit Scribbr for any content you use.

We’re always striving to improve the Knowledge Base. If you have an idea for a topic we should cover, or you notice a mistake in any of our articles, let us know by emailing [email protected] .

The consequences of plagiarism vary depending on the type of plagiarism and the context in which it occurs. For example, submitting a whole paper by someone else will have the most severe consequences, while accidental citation errors are considered less serious.

If you’re a student, then you might fail the course, be suspended or expelled, or be obligated to attend a workshop on plagiarism. It depends on whether it’s your first offence or you’ve done it before.

As an academic or professional, plagiarising seriously damages your reputation. You might also lose your research funding or your job, and you could even face legal consequences for copyright infringement.

Paraphrasing without crediting the original author is a form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.

However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly reference the source . This means including an in-text referencing and a full reference , formatted according to your required citation style (e.g., Harvard , Vancouver ).

As well as referencing your source, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.

Accidental plagiarism is one of the most common examples of plagiarism . Perhaps you forgot to cite a source, or paraphrased something a bit too closely. Maybe you can’t remember where you got an idea from, and aren’t totally sure if it’s original or not.

These all count as plagiarism, even though you didn’t do it on purpose. When in doubt, make sure you’re citing your sources . Also consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission, which work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker takes less than 10 minutes and can help you turn in your paper with confidence.

The accuracy depends on the plagiarism checker you use. Per our in-depth research , Scribbr is the most accurate plagiarism checker. Many free plagiarism checkers fail to detect all plagiarism or falsely flag text as plagiarism.

Plagiarism checkers work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts. Their accuracy is determined by two factors: the algorithm (which recognises the plagiarism) and the size of the database (with which your document is compared).

To avoid plagiarism when summarising an article or other source, follow these two rules:

  • Write the summary entirely in your own words by   paraphrasing the author’s ideas.
  • Reference the source with an in-text citation and a full reference so your reader can easily find the original text.

Plagiarism can be detected by your professor or readers if the tone, formatting, or style of your text is different in different parts of your paper, or if they’re familiar with the plagiarised source.

Many universities also use   plagiarism detection software like Turnitin’s, which compares your text to a large database of other sources, flagging any similarities that come up.

It can be easier than you think to commit plagiarism by accident. Consider using a   plagiarism checker prior to submitting your essay to ensure you haven’t missed any citations.

Some examples of plagiarism include:

  • Copying and pasting a Wikipedia article into the body of an assignment
  • Quoting a source without including a citation
  • Not paraphrasing a source properly (e.g. maintaining wording too close to the original)
  • Forgetting to cite the source of an idea

The most surefire way to   avoid plagiarism is to always cite your sources . When in doubt, cite!

Global plagiarism means taking an entire work written by someone else and passing it off as your own. This can include getting someone else to write an essay or assignment for you, or submitting a text you found online as your own work.

Global plagiarism is one of the most serious types of plagiarism because it involves deliberately and directly lying about the authorship of a work. It can have severe consequences for students and professionals alike.

Verbatim plagiarism means copying text from a source and pasting it directly into your own document without giving proper credit.

If the structure and the majority of the words are the same as in the original source, then you are committing verbatim plagiarism. This is the case even if you delete a few words or replace them with synonyms.

If you want to use an author’s exact words, you need to quote the original source by putting the copied text in quotation marks and including an   in-text citation .

Patchwork plagiarism , also called mosaic plagiarism, means copying phrases, passages, or ideas from various existing sources and combining them to create a new text. This includes slightly rephrasing some of the content, while keeping many of the same words and the same structure as the original.

While this type of plagiarism is more insidious than simply copying and pasting directly from a source, plagiarism checkers like Turnitin’s can still easily detect it.

To avoid plagiarism in any form, remember to reference your sources .

Yes, reusing your own work without citation is considered self-plagiarism . This can range from resubmitting an entire assignment to reusing passages or data from something you’ve handed in previously.

Self-plagiarism often has the same consequences as other types of plagiarism . If you want to reuse content you wrote in the past, make sure to check your university’s policy or consult your professor.

If you are reusing content or data you used in a previous assignment, make sure to cite yourself. You can cite yourself the same way you would cite any other source: simply follow the directions for the citation style you are using.

Keep in mind that reusing prior content can be considered self-plagiarism , so make sure you ask your instructor or consult your university’s handbook prior to doing so.

Most institutions have an internal database of previously submitted student assignments. Turnitin can check for self-plagiarism by comparing your paper against this database. If you’ve reused parts of an assignment you already submitted, it will flag any similarities as potential plagiarism.

Online plagiarism checkers don’t have access to your institution’s database, so they can’t detect self-plagiarism of unpublished work. If you’re worried about accidentally self-plagiarising, you can use Scribbr’s Self-Plagiarism Checker to upload your unpublished documents and check them for similarities.

Plagiarism has serious consequences and can be illegal in certain scenarios.

While most of the time plagiarism in an undergraduate setting is not illegal, plagiarism or self-plagiarism in a professional academic setting can lead to legal action, including copyright infringement and fraud. Many scholarly journals do not allow you to submit the same work to more than one journal, and if you do not credit a coauthor, you could be legally defrauding them.

Even if you aren’t breaking the law, plagiarism can seriously impact your academic career. While the exact consequences of plagiarism vary by institution and severity, common consequences include a lower grade, automatically failing a course, academic suspension or probation, and even expulsion.

Self-plagiarism means recycling work that you’ve previously published or submitted as an assignment. It’s considered academic dishonesty to present something as brand new when you’ve already gotten credit and perhaps feedback for it in the past.

If you want to refer to ideas or data from previous work, be sure to cite yourself.

Academic integrity means being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. To maintain academic integrity, you should avoid misleading your readers about any part of your research and refrain from offences like plagiarism and contract cheating, which are examples of academic misconduct.

Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and it varies in severity.

It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism . It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend’s homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

Academic dishonesty doesn’t just occur in a classroom setting, but also in research and other academic-adjacent fields.

Consequences of academic dishonesty depend on the severity of the offence and your institution’s policy. They can range from a warning for a first offence to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work.

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbour’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

Plagiarism means presenting someone else’s work as your own without giving proper credit to the original author. In academic writing, plagiarism involves using words, ideas, or information from a source without including a citation .

Plagiarism can have serious consequences , even when it’s done accidentally. To avoid plagiarism, it’s important to keep track of your sources and cite them correctly.

Common knowledge does not need to be cited. However, you should be extra careful when deciding what counts as common knowledge.

Common knowledge encompasses information that the average educated reader would accept as true without needing the extra validation of a source or citation.

Common knowledge should be widely known, undisputed, and easily verified. When in doubt, always cite your sources.

Most online plagiarism checkers only have access to public databases, whose software doesn’t allow you to compare two documents for plagiarism.

However, in addition to our Plagiarism Checker , Scribbr also offers an Self-Plagiarism Checker . This is an add-on tool that lets you compare your paper with unpublished or private documents. This way you can rest assured that you haven’t unintentionally plagiarised or self-plagiarised .

Compare two sources for plagiarism

Rapport begrijpen OSC

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

  • If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts, and meanings, use qualitative methods .
  • If you want to analyse a large amount of readily available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how they are generated, collect primary data.
  • If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

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

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

  • Prepare and organise your data.
  • Review and explore your data.
  • Develop a data coding system.
  • Assign codes to the data.
  • Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

  • Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
  • Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organisation to understand its culture.
  • Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
  • Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
  • Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Operationalisation means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioural avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalise the variables that you want to measure.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

  • Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analysed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
  • Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
  • Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualise your quantitative findings.
  • Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

An observational study could be a good fit for your research if your research question is based on things you observe. If you have ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that make an experimental design challenging, consider an observational study. Remember that in an observational study, it is critical that there be no interference or manipulation of the research subjects. Since it’s not an experiment, there are no control or treatment groups either.

The key difference between observational studies and experiments is that, done correctly, an observational study will never influence the responses or behaviours of participants. Experimental designs will have a treatment condition applied to at least a portion of participants.

Exploratory research explores the main aspects of a new or barely researched question.

Explanatory research explains the causes and effects of an already widely researched question.

Experimental designs are a set of procedures that you plan in order to examine the relationship between variables that interest you.

To design a successful experiment, first identify:

  • A testable hypothesis
  • One or more independent variables that you will manipulate
  • One or more dependent variables that you will measure

When designing the experiment, first decide:

  • How your variable(s) will be manipulated
  • How you will control for any potential confounding or lurking variables
  • How many subjects you will include
  • How you will assign treatments to your subjects

There are four main types of triangulation :

  • Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
  • Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analysing data
  • Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
  • Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic

Triangulation can help:

  • Reduce bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
  • Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
  • Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem

But triangulation can also pose problems:

  • It’s time-consuming and labour-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
  • Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word ‘between’ means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word ‘within’ means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference between this and a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomisation. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.

Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .

Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity  as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.

Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .

Advantages:

  • Only requires small samples
  • Statistically powerful
  • Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes

Disadvantages:

  • Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
  • Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
  • Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes

Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.

In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.

If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.

While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .

  • Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
  • Shorter study duration.
  • Needs larger samples for high power.
  • Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
  • Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling , and quota sampling .

In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.

This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from county to city to neighbourhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.

Sampling bias occurs when some members of a population are systematically more likely to be selected in a sample than others.

Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data are then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.

The American Community Survey  is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.

If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,

If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.

Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.

However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.

There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.

  • In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
  • In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
  • In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.

The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.

In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods.

For a probability sample, you have to probability sampling at every stage. You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.

Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.

But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .

In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).

Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method .

You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.

Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.

For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.

Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.

For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 × 5 = 15 subgroups.

There are three key steps in systematic sampling :

  • Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
  • Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
  • Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.

Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .

Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.

A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .

A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .

There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction, and attrition .

Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.

Attrition bias is a threat to internal validity . In experiments, differential rates of attrition between treatment and control groups can skew results.

This bias can affect the relationship between your independent and dependent variables . It can make variables appear to be correlated when they are not, or vice versa.

The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalise your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.

The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalise to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalise to other situations and settings).

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment, and situation effect.

Attrition bias can skew your sample so that your final sample differs significantly from your original sample. Your sample is biased because some groups from your population are underrepresented.

With a biased final sample, you may not be able to generalise your findings to the original population that you sampled from, so your external validity is compromised.

Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.

There are two subtypes of construct validity.

  • Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
  • Discriminant validity: The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs

When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity ,  because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity, and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.

Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.

You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .

Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.

Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.

Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.

It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.

While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.

There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.

Here are a few common types:

  • Inductive generalisation : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
  • Statistical generalisation: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
  • Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
  • Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
  • Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .

In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.

A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it ‘depends’ on your independent variable.

In statistics, dependent variables are also called:

  • Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
  • Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
  • Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)

An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called ‘independent’ because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.

Independent variables are also called:

  • Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
  • Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
  • Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation)

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x -axis, while the response variable is placed on the y -axis.

  • If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
  • If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
  • If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.

The term ‘ explanatory variable ‘ is sometimes preferred over ‘ independent variable ‘ because, in real-world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.

Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so ‘explanatory variables’ is a more appropriate term.

The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:

  • An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
  • A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.

There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :

  • Demand characteristics : Environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations
  • Experimenter effects : Unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes
  • Situational variables : Eenvironmental variables that alter participants’ behaviours
  • Participant variables : Any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results

An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.

A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.

‘Controlling for a variable’ means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.

Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.

Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .

If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

In statistics, ordinal and nominal variables are both considered categorical variables .

Even though ordinal data can sometimes be numerical, not all mathematical operations can be performed on them.

In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).

The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalisation .

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control, and randomisation.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomisation , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both.

You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet cola and regular cola, so you conduct an experiment .

  • The type of cola – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
  • The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of cola.

Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.

Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).

Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).

You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .

Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :

  • Discrete variables represent counts (e.g., the number of objects in a collection).
  • Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g., water volume or weight).

You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .

In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:

  • The  independent variable  is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
  • The  dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.

Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .

Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.

Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.

If something is a mediating variable :

  • It’s caused by the independent variable
  • It influences the dependent variable
  • When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered

A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

  • You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g., understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website).
  • You can control and standardise the process for high reliability and validity (e.g., choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods ).

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labour-intensive, and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when:

  • You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
  • You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyse your data quickly and efficiently
  • Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

  • You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
  • Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

  • You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions
  • Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
  • You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualise your initial thoughts and hypotheses
  • Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts

The four most common types of interviews are:

  • Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
  • Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
  • Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
  • Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of four types of interviews .

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favourably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias in research can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behaviour accordingly.

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups . Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

  • Open-ended and flexible
  • Impossible to answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (questions that start with ‘why’ or ‘how’ are often best)
  • Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
  • Unbiased and neutral

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

  • In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
  • In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

  • A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
  • A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
  • A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.

The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .

Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.

Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.

Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyse behaviour over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .

Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.

Sometimes only cross-sectional data are available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyse your data.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviours. It is made up of four or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with five or seven possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analysing data from people using questionnaires.

A true experiment (aka a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.

However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).

For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:

  • A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment
  • Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent

Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .

Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.

Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or by post. All questions are standardised so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.

Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.

You can organise the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomisation can minimise the bias from order effects.

Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.

Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviours of your research subjects in real-world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as ‘people watching’ with a purpose.

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

You can use several tactics to minimise observer bias .

  • Use masking (blinding) to hide the purpose of your study from all observers.
  • Triangulate your data with different data collection methods or sources.
  • Use multiple observers and ensure inter-rater reliability.
  • Train your observers to make sure data is consistently recorded between them.
  • Standardise your observation procedures to make sure they are structured and clear.

The observer-expectancy effect occurs when researchers influence the results of their own study through interactions with participants.

Researchers’ own beliefs and expectations about the study results may unintentionally influence participants through demand characteristics .

Observer bias occurs when a researcher’s expectations, opinions, or prejudices influence what they perceive or record in a study. It usually affects studies when observers are aware of the research aims or hypotheses. This type of research bias is also called detection bias or ascertainment bias .

Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimise or resolve these.

Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.

Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.

In this process, you review, analyse, detect, modify, or remove ‘dirty’ data to make your dataset ‘clean’. Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.

Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.

For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.

After data collection, you can use data standardisation and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.

Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.

Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.

Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.

In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.

Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.

In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.

Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalisability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.

To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .

Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a die to randomly assign participants to groups.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .

Blinding is important to reduce bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .

If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behaviour in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.

  • In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
  • In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
  • In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analysing the data.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field.

It acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

  • First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
  • Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
  • Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
  • Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
  • Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilising rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project – provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well regarded.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information – for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

The two main types of social desirability bias are:

  • Self-deceptive enhancement (self-deception): The tendency to see oneself in a favorable light without realizing it.
  • Impression managemen t (other-deception): The tendency to inflate one’s abilities or achievement in order to make a good impression on other people.

Demand characteristics are aspects of experiments that may give away the research objective to participants. Social desirability bias occurs when participants automatically try to respond in ways that make them seem likeable in a study, even if it means misrepresenting how they truly feel.

Participants may use demand characteristics to infer social norms or experimenter expectancies and act in socially desirable ways, so you should try to control for demand characteristics wherever possible.

Response bias refers to conditions or factors that take place during the process of responding to surveys, affecting the responses. One type of response bias is social desirability bias .

When your population is large in size, geographically dispersed, or difficult to contact, it’s necessary to use a sampling method .

This allows you to gather information from a smaller part of the population, i.e. the sample, and make accurate statements by using statistical analysis. A few sampling methods include simple random sampling , convenience sampling , and snowball sampling .

Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.

Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .

A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.

Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.

However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.

In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection , using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.

Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.

On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.

Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.

The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).

Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:

  • If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
  • If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
  • If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extra-marital affairs)

Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones. 

Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .

This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalisations – often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population, and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.

Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.

Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.

  • Reproducing research entails reanalysing the existing data in the same manner.
  • Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data . 
  • A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
  • A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.

The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.

  • Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
  • Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related

You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.

Construct validity has convergent and discriminant subtypes. They assist determine if a test measures the intended notion.

Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps  into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.

In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.

The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.

If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.

Construct validity refers to how well a test measures the concept (or construct) it was designed to measure. Assessing construct validity is especially important when you’re researching concepts that can’t be quantified and/or are intangible, like introversion. To ensure construct validity your test should be based on known indicators of introversion ( operationalisation ).

On the other hand, content validity assesses how well the test represents all aspects of the construct. If some aspects are missing or irrelevant parts are included, the test has low content validity.

Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.

When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.

For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).

On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analysing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.

A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.

  • Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .

Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.

While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.

Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent – for example, in randomised control trials for medical research.

Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .

Criterion validity evaluates how well a test measures the outcome it was designed to measure. An outcome can be, for example, the onset of a disease.

Criterion validity consists of two subtypes depending on the time at which the two measures (the criterion and your test) are obtained:

  • Concurrent validity is a validation strategy where the the scores of a test and the criterion are obtained at the same time
  • Predictive validity is a validation strategy where the criterion variables are measured after the scores of the test

Validity tells you how accurately a method measures what it was designed to measure. There are 4 main types of validity :

  • Construct validity : Does the test measure the construct it was designed to measure?
  • Face validity : Does the test appear to be suitable for its objectives ?
  • Content validity : Does the test cover all relevant parts of the construct it aims to measure.
  • Criterion validity : Do the results accurately measure the concrete outcome they are designed to measure?

Convergent validity shows how much a measure of one construct aligns with other measures of the same or related constructs .

On the other hand, concurrent validity is about how a measure matches up to some known criterion or gold standard, which can be another measure.

Although both types of validity are established by calculating the association or correlation between a test score and another variable , they represent distinct validation methods.

The purpose of theory-testing mode is to find evidence in order to disprove, refine, or support a theory. As such, generalisability is not the aim of theory-testing mode.

Due to this, the priority of researchers in theory-testing mode is to eliminate alternative causes for relationships between variables . In other words, they prioritise internal validity over external validity , including ecological validity .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are typically presented and discussed in the methodology section of your thesis or dissertation .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are predominantly used in non-probability sampling . In purposive sampling and snowball sampling , restrictions apply as to who can be included in the sample .

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

  • Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
  • Your proposed timeline and duration
  • Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
  • Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.

Quantitative observations involve measuring or counting something and expressing the result in numerical form, while qualitative observations involve describing something in non-numerical terms, such as its appearance, texture, or color.

The Scribbr Reference Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Reference Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

To paraphrase effectively, don’t just take the original sentence and swap out some of the words for synonyms. Instead, try:

  • Reformulating the sentence (e.g., change active to passive , or start from a different point)
  • Combining information from multiple sentences into one
  • Leaving out information from the original that isn’t relevant to your point
  • Using synonyms where they don’t distort the meaning

The main point is to ensure you don’t just copy the structure of the original text, but instead reformulate the idea in your own words.

Plagiarism means using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as your own. Paraphrasing means putting someone else’s ideas into your own words.

So when does paraphrasing count as plagiarism?

  • Paraphrasing is plagiarism if you don’t properly credit the original author.
  • Paraphrasing is plagiarism if your text is too close to the original wording (even if you cite the source). If you directly copy a sentence or phrase, you should quote it instead.
  • Paraphrasing  is not plagiarism if you put the author’s ideas completely into your own words and properly reference the source .

To present information from other sources in academic writing , it’s best to paraphrase in most cases. This shows that you’ve understood the ideas you’re discussing and incorporates them into your text smoothly.

It’s appropriate to quote when:

  • Changing the phrasing would distort the meaning of the original text
  • You want to discuss the author’s language choices (e.g., in literary analysis )
  • You’re presenting a precise definition
  • You’re looking in depth at a specific claim

A quote is an exact copy of someone else’s words, usually enclosed in quotation marks and credited to the original author or speaker.

Every time you quote a source , you must include a correctly formatted in-text citation . This looks slightly different depending on the citation style .

For example, a direct quote in APA is cited like this: ‘This is a quote’ (Streefkerk, 2020, p. 5).

Every in-text citation should also correspond to a full reference at the end of your paper.

In scientific subjects, the information itself is more important than how it was expressed, so quoting should generally be kept to a minimum. In the arts and humanities, however, well-chosen quotes are often essential to a good paper.

In social sciences, it varies. If your research is mainly quantitative , you won’t include many quotes, but if it’s more qualitative , you may need to quote from the data you collected .

As a general guideline, quotes should take up no more than 5–10% of your paper. If in doubt, check with your instructor or supervisor how much quoting is appropriate in your field.

If you’re quoting from a text that paraphrases or summarises other sources and cites them in parentheses , APA  recommends retaining the citations as part of the quote:

  • Smith states that ‘the literature on this topic (Jones, 2015; Sill, 2019; Paulson, 2020) shows no clear consensus’ (Smith, 2019, p. 4).

Footnote or endnote numbers that appear within quoted text should be omitted.

If you want to cite an indirect source (one you’ve only seen quoted in another source), either locate the original source or use the phrase ‘as cited in’ in your citation.

A block quote is a long quote formatted as a separate ‘block’ of text. Instead of using quotation marks , you place the quote on a new line, and indent the entire quote to mark it apart from your own words.

APA uses block quotes for quotes that are 40 words or longer.

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

  • The information should be up to date and current.
  • The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
  • The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
  • For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Common examples of primary sources include interview transcripts , photographs, novels, paintings, films, historical documents, and official statistics.

Anything you directly analyze or use as first-hand evidence can be a primary source, including qualitative or quantitative data that you collected yourself.

Common examples of secondary sources include academic books, journal articles , reviews, essays , and textbooks.

Anything that summarizes, evaluates or interprets primary sources can be a secondary source. If a source gives you an overview of background information or presents another researcher’s ideas on your topic, it is probably a secondary source.

To determine if a source is primary or secondary, ask yourself:

  • Was the source created by someone directly involved in the events you’re studying (primary), or by another researcher (secondary)?
  • Does the source provide original information (primary), or does it summarize information from other sources (secondary)?
  • Are you directly analyzing the source itself (primary), or only using it for background information (secondary)?

Some types of sources are nearly always primary: works of art and literature, raw statistical data, official documents and records, and personal communications (e.g. letters, interviews ). If you use one of these in your research, it is probably a primary source.

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

Always make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

A fictional movie is usually a primary source. A documentary can be either primary or secondary depending on the context.

If you are directly analysing some aspect of the movie itself – for example, the cinematography, narrative techniques, or social context – the movie is a primary source.

If you use the movie for background information or analysis about your topic – for example, to learn about a historical event or a scientific discovery – the movie is a secondary source.

Whether it’s primary or secondary, always properly cite the movie in the citation style you are using. Learn how to create an MLA movie citation or an APA movie citation .

Articles in newspapers and magazines can be primary or secondary depending on the focus of your research.

In historical studies, old articles are used as primary sources that give direct evidence about the time period. In social and communication studies, articles are used as primary sources to analyse language and social relations (for example, by conducting content analysis or discourse analysis ).

If you are not analysing the article itself, but only using it for background information or facts about your topic, then the article is a secondary source.

In academic writing , there are three main situations where quoting is the best choice:

  • To analyse the author’s language (e.g., in a literary analysis essay )
  • To give evidence from primary sources
  • To accurately present a precise definition or argument

Don’t overuse quotes; your own voice should be dominant. If you just want to provide information from a source, it’s usually better to paraphrase or summarise .

Your list of tables and figures should go directly after your table of contents in your thesis or dissertation.

Lists of figures and tables are often not required, and they aren’t particularly common. They specifically aren’t required for APA Style, though you should be careful to follow their other guidelines for figures and tables .

If you have many figures and tables in your thesis or dissertation, include one may help you stay organised. Your educational institution may require them, so be sure to check their guidelines.

Copyright information can usually be found wherever the table or figure was published. For example, for a diagram in a journal article , look on the journal’s website or the database where you found the article. Images found on sites like Flickr are listed with clear copyright information.

If you find that permission is required to reproduce the material, be sure to contact the author or publisher and ask for it.

A list of figures and tables compiles all of the figures and tables that you used in your thesis or dissertation and displays them with the page number where they can be found.

APA doesn’t require you to include a list of tables or a list of figures . However, it is advisable to do so if your text is long enough to feature a table of contents and it includes a lot of tables and/or figures .

A list of tables and list of figures appear (in that order) after your table of contents, and are presented in a similar way.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. Your glossary only needs to include terms that your reader may not be familiar with, and is intended to enhance their understanding of your work.

Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge , meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited. This guidance can apply to your thesis or dissertation glossary as well.

However, if you’d prefer to cite your sources , you can follow guidance for citing dictionary entries in MLA or APA style for your glossary.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, an index is a list of the contents of your work organised by page number.

Glossaries are not mandatory, but if you use a lot of technical or field-specific terms, it may improve readability to add one to your thesis or dissertation. Your educational institution may also require them, so be sure to check their specific guidelines.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, dictionaries are more general collections of words.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation should include your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation goes first, before all other content or lists that you may choose to include.

Usually, no title page is needed in an MLA paper . A header is generally included at the top of the first page instead. The exceptions are when:

  • Your instructor requires one, or
  • Your paper is a group project

In those cases, you should use a title page instead of a header, listing the same information but on a separate page.

When you mention different chapters within your text, it’s considered best to use Roman numerals for most citation styles. However, the most important thing here is to remain consistent whenever using numbers in your dissertation .

A thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organise your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation, such as:

  • Your anticipated title
  • Your abstract
  • Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review, research methods, avenues for future research, etc.)

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

  • Researchability
  • Feasibility and specificity
  • Relevance and originality

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

A noun is a word that represents a person, thing, concept, or place (e.g., ‘John’, ‘house’, ‘affinity’, ‘river’). Most sentences contain at least one noun or pronoun .

Nouns are often, but not always, preceded by an article (‘the’, ‘a’, or ‘an’) and/or another determiner such as an adjective.

There are many ways to categorize nouns into various types, and the same noun can fall into multiple categories or even change types depending on context.

Some of the main types of nouns are:

  • Common nouns and proper nouns
  • Countable and uncountable nouns
  • Concrete and abstract nouns
  • Collective nouns
  • Possessive nouns
  • Attributive nouns
  • Appositive nouns
  • Generic nouns

Pronouns are words like ‘I’, ‘she’, and ‘they’ that are used in a similar way to nouns . They stand in for a noun that has already been mentioned or refer to yourself and other people.

Pronouns can function just like nouns as the head of a noun phrase and as the subject or object of a verb. However, pronouns change their forms (e.g., from ‘I’ to ‘me’) depending on the grammatical context they’re used in, whereas nouns usually don’t.

Common nouns are words for types of things, people, and places, such as ‘dog’, ‘professor’, and ‘city’. They are not capitalised and are typically used in combination with articles and other determiners.

Proper nouns are words for specific things, people, and places, such as ‘Max’, ‘Dr Prakash’, and ‘London’. They are always capitalised and usually aren’t combined with articles and other determiners.

A proper adjective is an adjective that was derived from a proper noun and is therefore capitalised .

Proper adjectives include words for nationalities, languages, and ethnicities (e.g., ‘Japanese’, ‘Inuit’, ‘French’) and words derived from people’s names (e.g., ‘Bayesian’, ‘Orwellian’).

The names of seasons (e.g., ‘spring’) are treated as common nouns in English and therefore not capitalised . People often assume they are proper nouns, but this is an error.

The names of days and months, however, are capitalised since they’re treated as proper nouns in English (e.g., ‘Wednesday’, ‘January’).

No, as a general rule, academic concepts, disciplines, theories, models, etc. are treated as common nouns , not proper nouns , and therefore not capitalised . For example, ‘five-factor model of personality’ or ‘analytic philosophy’.

However, proper nouns that appear within the name of an academic concept (such as the name of the inventor) are capitalised as usual. For example, ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution’ or ‘ Student’s t table ‘.

Collective nouns are most commonly treated as singular (e.g., ‘the herd is grazing’), but usage differs between US and UK English :

  • In US English, it’s standard to treat all collective nouns as singular, even when they are plural in appearance (e.g., ‘The Rolling Stones is …’). Using the plural form is usually seen as incorrect.
  • In UK English, collective nouns can be treated as singular or plural depending on context. It’s quite common to use the plural form, especially when the noun looks plural (e.g., ‘The Rolling Stones are …’).

The plural of “crisis” is “crises”. It’s a loanword from Latin and retains its original Latin plural noun form (similar to “analyses” and “bases”). It’s wrong to write “crisises”.

For example, you might write “Several crises destabilized the regime.”

Normally, the plural of “fish” is the same as the singular: “fish”. It’s one of a group of irregular plural nouns in English that are identical to the corresponding singular nouns (e.g., “moose”, “sheep”). For example, you might write “The fish scatter as the shark approaches.”

If you’re referring to several species of fish, though, the regular plural “fishes” is often used instead. For example, “The aquarium contains many different fishes , including trout and carp.”

The correct plural of “octopus” is “octopuses”.

People often write “octopi” instead because they assume that the plural noun is formed in the same way as Latin loanwords such as “fungus/fungi”. But “octopus” actually comes from Greek, where its original plural is “octopodes”. In English, it instead has the regular plural form “octopuses”.

For example, you might write “There are four octopuses in the aquarium.”

The plural of “moose” is the same as the singular: “moose”. It’s one of a group of plural nouns in English that are identical to the corresponding singular nouns. So it’s wrong to write “mooses”.

For example, you might write “There are several moose in the forest.”

Bias in research affects the validity and reliability of your findings, leading to false conclusions and a misinterpretation of the truth. This can have serious implications in areas like medical research where, for example, a new form of treatment may be evaluated.

Observer bias occurs when the researcher’s assumptions, views, or preconceptions influence what they see and record in a study, while actor–observer bias refers to situations where respondents attribute internal factors (e.g., bad character) to justify other’s behaviour and external factors (difficult circumstances) to justify the same behaviour in themselves.

Response bias is a general term used to describe a number of different conditions or factors that cue respondents to provide inaccurate or false answers during surveys or interviews . These factors range from the interviewer’s perceived social position or appearance to the the phrasing of questions in surveys.

Nonresponse bias occurs when the people who complete a survey are different from those who did not, in ways that are relevant to the research topic. Nonresponse can happen either because people are not willing or not able to participate.

In research, demand characteristics are cues that might indicate the aim of a study to participants. These cues can lead to participants changing their behaviors or responses based on what they think the research is about.

Demand characteristics are common problems in psychology experiments and other social science studies because they can bias your research findings.

Demand characteristics are a type of extraneous variable that can affect the outcomes of the study. They can invalidate studies by providing an alternative explanation for the results.

These cues may nudge participants to consciously or unconsciously change their responses, and they pose a threat to both internal and external validity . You can’t be sure that your independent variable manipulation worked, or that your findings can be applied to other people or settings.

You can control demand characteristics by taking a few precautions in your research design and materials.

Use these measures:

  • Deception: Hide the purpose of the study from participants
  • Between-groups design : Give each participant only one independent variable treatment
  • Double-blind design : Conceal the assignment of groups from participants and yourself
  • Implicit measures: Use indirect or hidden measurements for your variables

Some attrition is normal and to be expected in research. However, the type of attrition is important because systematic research bias can distort your findings. Attrition bias can lead to inaccurate results because it affects internal and/or external validity .

To avoid attrition bias , applying some of these measures can help you reduce participant dropout (attrition) by making it easy and appealing for participants to stay.

  • Provide compensation (e.g., cash or gift cards) for attending every session
  • Minimise the number of follow-ups as much as possible
  • Make all follow-ups brief, flexible, and convenient for participants
  • Send participants routine reminders to schedule follow-ups
  • Recruit more participants than you need for your sample (oversample)
  • Maintain detailed contact information so you can get in touch with participants even if they move

If you have a small amount of attrition bias , you can use a few statistical methods to try to make up for this research bias .

Multiple imputation involves using simulations to replace the missing data with likely values. Alternatively, you can use sample weighting to make up for the uneven balance of participants in your sample.

Placebos are used in medical research for new medication or therapies, called clinical trials. In these trials some people are given a placebo, while others are given the new medication being tested.

The purpose is to determine how effective the new medication is: if it benefits people beyond a predefined threshold as compared to the placebo, it’s considered effective.

Although there is no definite answer to what causes the placebo effect , researchers propose a number of explanations such as the power of suggestion, doctor-patient interaction, classical conditioning, etc.

Belief bias and confirmation bias are both types of cognitive bias that impact our judgment and decision-making.

Confirmation bias relates to how we perceive and judge evidence. We tend to seek out and prefer information that supports our preexisting beliefs, ignoring any information that contradicts those beliefs.

Belief bias describes the tendency to judge an argument based on how plausible the conclusion seems to us, rather than how much evidence is provided to support it during the course of the argument.

Positivity bias is phenomenon that occurs when a person judges individual members of a group positively, even when they have negative impressions or judgments of the group as a whole. Positivity bias is closely related to optimism bias , or the e xpectation that things will work out well, even if rationality suggests that problems are inevitable in life.

Perception bias is a problem because it prevents us from seeing situations or people objectively. Rather, our expectations, beliefs, or emotions interfere with how we interpret reality. This, in turn, can cause us to misjudge ourselves or others. For example, our prejudices can interfere with whether we perceive people’s faces as friendly or unfriendly.

There are many ways to categorize adjectives into various types. An adjective can fall into one or more of these categories depending on how it is used.

Some of the main types of adjectives are:

  • Attributive adjectives
  • Predicative adjectives
  • Comparative adjectives
  • Superlative adjectives
  • Coordinate adjectives
  • Appositive adjectives
  • Compound adjectives
  • Participial adjectives
  • Proper adjectives
  • Denominal adjectives
  • Nominal adjectives

Cardinal numbers (e.g., one, two, three) can be placed before a noun to indicate quantity (e.g., one apple). While these are sometimes referred to as ‘numeral adjectives ‘, they are more accurately categorised as determiners or quantifiers.

Proper adjectives are adjectives formed from a proper noun (i.e., the name of a specific person, place, or thing) that are used to indicate origin. Like proper nouns, proper adjectives are always capitalised (e.g., Newtonian, Marxian, African).

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as £0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

Then and than are two commonly confused words . In the context of ‘better than’, you use ‘than’ with an ‘a’.

  • Julie is better than Jesse.
  • I’d rather spend my time with you than with him.
  • I understand Eoghan’s point of view better than Claudia’s.

Use to and used to are commonly confused words . In the case of ‘used to do’, the latter (with ‘d’) is correct, since you’re describing an action or state in the past.

  • I used to do laundry once a week.
  • They used to do each other’s hair.
  • We used to do the dishes every day .

There are numerous synonyms and near synonyms for the various meanings of “ favour ”:

There are numerous synonyms and near synonyms for the two meanings of “ favoured ”:

No one (two words) is an indefinite pronoun meaning ‘nobody’. People sometimes mistakenly write ‘noone’, but this is incorrect and should be avoided. ‘No-one’, with a hyphen, is also acceptable in UK English .

Nobody and no one are both indefinite pronouns meaning ‘no person’. They can be used interchangeably (e.g., ‘nobody is home’ means the same as ‘no one is home’).

Some synonyms and near synonyms of  every time include:

  • Without exception

‘Everytime’ is sometimes used to mean ‘each time’ or ‘whenever’. However, this is incorrect and should be avoided. The correct phrase is every time   (two words).

Yes, the conjunction because is a compound word , but one with a long history. It originates in Middle English from the preposition “bi” (“by”) and the noun “cause”. Over time, the open compound “bi cause” became the closed compound “because”, which we use today.

Though it’s spelled this way now, the verb “be” is not one of the words that makes up “because”.

Yes, today is a compound word , but a very old one. It wasn’t originally formed from the preposition “to” and the noun “day”; rather, it originates from their Old English equivalents, “tō” and “dæġe”.

In the past, it was sometimes written as a hyphenated compound: “to-day”. But the hyphen is no longer included; it’s always “today” now (“to day” is also wrong).

IEEE citation format is defined by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and used in their publications.

It’s also a widely used citation style for students in technical fields like electrical and electronic engineering, computer science, telecommunications, and computer engineering.

An IEEE in-text citation consists of a number in brackets at the relevant point in the text, which points the reader to the right entry in the numbered reference list at the end of the paper. For example, ‘Smith [1] states that …’

A location marker such as a page number is also included within the brackets when needed: ‘Smith [1, p. 13] argues …’

The IEEE reference page consists of a list of references numbered in the order they were cited in the text. The title ‘References’ appears in bold at the top, either left-aligned or centered.

The numbers appear in square brackets on the left-hand side of the page. The reference entries are indented consistently to separate them from the numbers. Entries are single-spaced, with a normal paragraph break between them.

If you cite the same source more than once in your writing, use the same number for all of the IEEE in-text citations for that source, and only include it on the IEEE reference page once. The source is numbered based on the first time you cite it.

For example, the fourth source you cite in your paper is numbered [4]. If you cite it again later, you still cite it as [4]. You can cite different parts of the source each time by adding page numbers [4, p. 15].

A verb is a word that indicates a physical action (e.g., ‘drive’), a mental action (e.g., ‘think’) or a state of being (e.g., ‘exist’). Every sentence contains a verb.

Verbs are almost always used along with a noun or pronoun to describe what the noun or pronoun is doing.

There are many ways to categorize verbs into various types. A verb can fall into one or more of these categories depending on how it is used.

Some of the main types of verbs are:

  • Regular verbs
  • Irregular verbs
  • Transitive verbs
  • Intransitive verbs
  • Dynamic verbs
  • Stative verbs
  • Linking verbs
  • Auxiliary verbs
  • Modal verbs
  • Phrasal verbs

Regular verbs are verbs whose simple past and past participle are formed by adding the suffix ‘-ed’ (e.g., ‘walked’).

Irregular verbs are verbs that form their simple past and past participles in some way other than by adding the suffix ‘-ed’ (e.g., ‘sat’).

The indefinite articles a and an are used to refer to a general or unspecified version of a noun (e.g., a house). Which indefinite article you use depends on the pronunciation of the word that follows it.

  • A is used for words that begin with a consonant sound (e.g., a bear).
  • An is used for words that begin with a vowel sound (e.g., an eagle).

Indefinite articles can only be used with singular countable nouns . Like definite articles, they are a type of determiner .

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

  • Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
  • Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
  • Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organisation such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialised on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Though they’re pronounced the same, there’s a big difference in meaning between its and it’s .

  • ‘The cat ate its food’.
  • ‘It’s almost Christmas’.

Its and it’s are often confused, but its (without apostrophe) is the possessive form of ‘it’ (e.g., its tail, its argument, its wing). You use ‘its’ instead of ‘his’ and ‘her’ for neuter, inanimate nouns.

Then and than are two commonly confused words with different meanings and grammatical roles.

  • Then (pronounced with a short ‘e’ sound) refers to time. It’s often an adverb , but it can also be used as a noun meaning ‘that time’ and as an adjective referring to a previous status.
  • Than (pronounced with a short ‘a’ sound) is used for comparisons. Grammatically, it usually functions as a conjunction , but sometimes it’s a preposition .

Use to and used to are commonly confused words . In the case of ‘used to be’, the latter (with ‘d’) is correct, since you’re describing an action or state in the past.

  • I used to be the new coworker.
  • There used to be 4 cookies left.
  • We used to walk to school every day .

A grammar checker is a tool designed to automatically check your text for spelling errors, grammatical issues, punctuation mistakes , and problems with sentence structure . You can check out our analysis of the best free grammar checkers to learn more.

A paraphrasing tool edits your text more actively, changing things whether they were grammatically incorrect or not. It can paraphrase your sentences to make them more concise and readable or for other purposes. You can check out our analysis of the best free paraphrasing tools to learn more.

Some tools available online combine both functions. Others, such as QuillBot , have separate grammar checker and paraphrasing tools. Be aware of what exactly the tool you’re using does to avoid introducing unwanted changes.

Good grammar is the key to expressing yourself clearly and fluently, especially in professional communication and academic writing . Word processors, browsers, and email programs typically have built-in grammar checkers, but they’re quite limited in the kinds of problems they can fix.

If you want to go beyond detecting basic spelling errors, there are many online grammar checkers with more advanced functionality. They can often detect issues with punctuation , word choice, and sentence structure that more basic tools would miss.

Not all of these tools are reliable, though. You can check out our research into the best free grammar checkers to explore the options.

Our research indicates that the best free grammar checker available online is the QuillBot grammar checker .

We tested 10 of the most popular checkers with the same sample text (containing 20 grammatical errors) and found that QuillBot easily outperformed the competition, scoring 18 out of 20, a drastic improvement over the second-place score of 13 out of 20.

It even appeared to outperform the premium versions of other grammar checkers, despite being entirely free.

A teacher’s aide is a person who assists in teaching classes but is not a qualified teacher. Aide is a noun meaning ‘assistant’, so it will always refer to a person.

‘Teacher’s aid’ is incorrect.

A visual aid is an instructional device (e.g., a photo, a chart) that appeals to vision to help you understand written or spoken information. Aid is often placed after an attributive noun or adjective (like ‘visual’) that describes the type of help provided.

‘Visual aide’ is incorrect.

A job aid is an instructional tool (e.g., a checklist, a cheat sheet) that helps you work efficiently. Aid is a noun meaning ‘assistance’. It’s often placed after an adjective or attributive noun (like ‘job’) that describes the specific type of help provided.

‘Job aide’ is incorrect.

There are numerous synonyms for the various meanings of truly :

Yours truly is a phrase used at the end of a formal letter or email. It can also be used (typically in a humorous way) as a pronoun to refer to oneself (e.g., ‘The dinner was cooked by yours truly ‘). The latter usage should be avoided in formal writing.

It’s formed by combining the second-person possessive pronoun ‘yours’ with the adverb ‘ truly ‘.

A pathetic fallacy can be a short phrase or a whole sentence and is often used in novels and poetry. Pathetic fallacies serve multiple purposes, such as:

  • Conveying the emotional state of the characters or the narrator
  • Creating an atmosphere or set the mood of a scene
  • Foreshadowing events to come
  • Giving texture and vividness to a piece of writing
  • Communicating emotion to the reader in a subtle way, by describing the external world.
  • Bringing inanimate objects to life so that they seem more relatable.

AMA citation format is a citation style designed by the American Medical Association. It’s frequently used in the field of medicine.

You may be told to use AMA style for your student papers. You will also have to follow this style if you’re submitting a paper to a journal published by the AMA.

An AMA in-text citation consists of the number of the relevant reference on your AMA reference page , written in superscript 1 at the point in the text where the source is used.

It may also include the page number or range of the relevant material in the source (e.g., the part you quoted 2(p46) ). Multiple sources can be cited at one point, presented as a range or list (with no spaces 3,5–9 ).

An AMA reference usually includes the author’s last name and initials, the title of the source, information about the publisher or the publication it’s contained in, and the publication date. The specific details included, and the formatting, depend on the source type.

References in AMA style are presented in numerical order (numbered by the order in which they were first cited in the text) on your reference page. A source that’s cited repeatedly in the text still only appears once on the reference page.

An AMA in-text citation just consists of the number of the relevant entry on your AMA reference page , written in superscript at the point in the text where the source is referred to.

You don’t need to mention the author of the source in your sentence, but you can do so if you want. It’s not an official part of the citation, but it can be useful as part of a signal phrase introducing the source.

On your AMA reference page , author names are written with the last name first, followed by the initial(s) of their first name and middle name if mentioned.

There’s a space between the last name and the initials, but no space or punctuation between the initials themselves. The names of multiple authors are separated by commas , and the whole list ends in a period, e.g., ‘Andreessen F, Smith PW, Gonzalez E’.

The names of up to six authors should be listed for each source on your AMA reference page , separated by commas . For a source with seven or more authors, you should list the first three followed by ‘ et al’ : ‘Isidore, Gilbert, Gunvor, et al’.

In the text, mentioning author names is optional (as they aren’t an official part of AMA in-text citations ). If you do mention them, though, you should use the first author’s name followed by ‘et al’ when there are three or more : ‘Isidore et al argue that …’

Note that according to AMA’s rather minimalistic punctuation guidelines, there’s no period after ‘et al’ unless it appears at the end of a sentence. This is different from most other styles, where there is normally a period.

Yes, you should normally include an access date in an AMA website citation (or when citing any source with a URL). This is because webpages can change their content over time, so it’s useful for the reader to know when you accessed the page.

When a publication or update date is provided on the page, you should include it in addition to the access date. The access date appears second in this case, e.g., ‘Published June 19, 2021. Accessed August 29, 2022.’

Don’t include an access date when citing a source with a DOI (such as in an AMA journal article citation ).

Some variables have fixed levels. For example, gender and ethnicity are always nominal level data because they cannot be ranked.

However, for other variables, you can choose the level of measurement . For example, income is a variable that can be recorded on an ordinal or a ratio scale:

  • At an ordinal level , you could create 5 income groupings and code the incomes that fall within them from 1–5.
  • At a ratio level , you would record exact numbers for income.

If you have a choice, the ratio level is always preferable because you can analyse data in more ways. The higher the level of measurement, the more precise your data is.

The level at which you measure a variable determines how you can analyse your data.

Depending on the level of measurement , you can perform different descriptive statistics to get an overall summary of your data and inferential statistics to see if your results support or refute your hypothesis .

Levels of measurement tell you how precisely variables are recorded. There are 4 levels of measurement, which can be ranked from low to high:

  • Nominal : the data can only be categorised.
  • Ordinal : the data can be categorised and ranked.
  • Interval : the data can be categorised and ranked, and evenly spaced.
  • Ratio : the data can be categorised, ranked, evenly spaced and has a natural zero.

Statistical analysis is the main method for analyzing quantitative research data . It uses probabilities and models to test predictions about a population from sample data.

The null hypothesis is often abbreviated as H 0 . When the null hypothesis is written using mathematical symbols, it always includes an equality symbol (usually =, but sometimes ≥ or ≤).

The alternative hypothesis is often abbreviated as H a or H 1 . When the alternative hypothesis is written using mathematical symbols, it always includes an inequality symbol (usually ≠, but sometimes < or >).

As the degrees of freedom increase, Student’s t distribution becomes less leptokurtic , meaning that the probability of extreme values decreases. The distribution becomes more and more similar to a standard normal distribution .

When there are only one or two degrees of freedom , the chi-square distribution is shaped like a backwards ‘J’. When there are three or more degrees of freedom, the distribution is shaped like a right-skewed hump. As the degrees of freedom increase, the hump becomes less right-skewed and the peak of the hump moves to the right. The distribution becomes more and more similar to a normal distribution .

‘Looking forward in hearing from you’ is an incorrect version of the phrase looking forward to hearing from you . The phrasal verb ‘looking forward to’ always needs the preposition ‘to’, not ‘in’.

  • I am looking forward in hearing from you.
  • I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Some synonyms and near synonyms for the expression looking forward to hearing from you include:

  • Eagerly awaiting your response
  • Hoping to hear from you soon
  • It would be great to hear back from you
  • Thanks in advance for your reply

People sometimes mistakenly write ‘looking forward to hear from you’, but this is incorrect. The correct phrase is looking forward to hearing from you .

The phrasal verb ‘look forward to’ is always followed by a direct object, the thing you’re looking forward to. As the direct object has to be a noun phrase , it should be the gerund ‘hearing’, not the verb ‘hear’.

  • I’m looking forward to hear from you soon.
  • I’m looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Traditionally, the sign-off Yours sincerely is used in an email message or letter when you are writing to someone you have interacted with before, not a complete stranger.

Yours faithfully is used instead when you are writing to someone you have had no previous correspondence with, especially if you greeted them as ‘ Dear Sir or Madam ’.

Just checking in   is a standard phrase used to start an email (or other message) that’s intended to ask someone for a response or follow-up action in a friendly, informal way. However, it’s a cliché opening that can come across as passive-aggressive, so we recommend avoiding it in favor of a more direct opening like “We previously discussed …”

In a more personal context, you might encounter “just checking in” as part of a longer phrase such as “I’m just checking in to see how you’re doing”. In this case, it’s not asking the other person to do anything but rather asking about their well-being (emotional or physical) in a friendly way.

“Earliest convenience” is part of the phrase at your earliest convenience , meaning “as soon as you can”. 

It’s typically used to end an email in a formal context by asking the recipient to do something when it’s convenient for them to do so.

ASAP is an abbreviation of the phrase “as soon as possible”. 

It’s typically used to indicate a sense of urgency in highly informal contexts (e.g., “Let me know ASAP if you need me to drive you to the airport”).

“ASAP” should be avoided in more formal correspondence. Instead, use an alternative like at your earliest convenience .

Some synonyms and near synonyms of the verb   compose   (meaning “to make up”) are:

People increasingly use “comprise” as a synonym of “compose.” However, this is normally still seen as a mistake, and we recommend avoiding it in your academic writing . “Comprise” traditionally means “to be made up of,” not “to make up.”

Some synonyms and near synonyms of the verb comprise are:

  • Be composed of
  • Be made up of

People increasingly use “comprise” interchangeably with “compose,” meaning that they consider words like “compose,” “constitute,” and “form” to be synonymous with “comprise.” However, this is still normally regarded as an error, and we advise against using these words interchangeably in academic writing .

A fallacy is a mistaken belief, particularly one based on unsound arguments or one that lacks the evidence to support it. Common types of fallacy that may compromise the quality of your research are:

  • Correlation/causation fallacy: Claiming that two events that occur together have a cause-and-effect relationship even though this can’t be proven
  • Ecological fallacy : Making inferences about the nature of individuals based on aggregate data for the group
  • The sunk cost fallacy : Following through on a project or decision because we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, even if the current costs outweigh the benefits
  • The base-rate fallacy : Ignoring base-rate or statistically significant information, such as sample size or the relative frequency of an event, in favor of  less relevant information e.g., pertaining to a single case, or a small number of cases
  • The planning fallacy : Underestimating the time needed to complete a future task, even when we know that similar tasks in the past have taken longer than planned

The planning fallacy refers to people’s tendency to underestimate the resources needed to complete a future task, despite knowing that previous tasks have also taken longer than planned.

For example, people generally tend to underestimate the cost and time needed for construction projects. The planning fallacy occurs due to people’s tendency to overestimate the chances that positive events, such as a shortened timeline, will happen to them. This phenomenon is called optimism bias or positivity bias.

Although both red herring fallacy and straw man fallacy are logical fallacies or reasoning errors, they denote different attempts to “win” an argument. More specifically:

  • A red herring fallacy refers to an attempt to change the subject and divert attention from the original issue. In other words, a seemingly solid but ultimately irrelevant argument is introduced into the discussion, either on purpose or by mistake.
  • A straw man argument involves the deliberate distortion of another person’s argument. By oversimplifying or exaggerating it, the other party creates an easy-to-refute argument and then attacks it.

The red herring fallacy is a problem because it is flawed reasoning. It is a distraction device that causes people to become sidetracked from the main issue and draw wrong conclusions.

Although a red herring may have some kernel of truth, it is used as a distraction to keep our eyes on a different matter. As a result, it can cause us to accept and spread misleading information.

The sunk cost fallacy and escalation of commitment (or commitment bias ) are two closely related terms. However, there is a slight difference between them:

  • Escalation of commitment (aka commitment bias ) is the tendency to be consistent with what we have already done or said we will do in the past, especially if we did so in public. In other words, it is an attempt to save face and appear consistent.
  • Sunk cost fallacy is the tendency to stick with a decision or a plan even when it’s failing. Because we have already invested valuable time, money, or energy, quitting feels like these resources were wasted.

In other words, escalating commitment is a manifestation of the sunk cost fallacy: an irrational escalation of commitment frequently occurs when people refuse to accept that the resources they’ve already invested cannot be recovered. Instead, they insist on more spending to justify the initial investment (and the incurred losses).

When you are faced with a straw man argument , the best way to respond is to draw attention to the fallacy and ask your discussion partner to show how your original statement and their distorted version are the same. Since these are different, your partner will either have to admit that their argument is invalid or try to justify it by using more flawed reasoning, which you can then attack.

The straw man argument is a problem because it occurs when we fail to take an opposing point of view seriously. Instead, we intentionally misrepresent our opponent’s ideas and avoid genuinely engaging with them. Due to this, resorting to straw man fallacy lowers the standard of constructive debate.

A straw man argument is a distorted (and weaker) version of another person’s argument that can easily be refuted (e.g., when a teacher proposes that the class spend more time on math exercises, a parent complains that the teacher doesn’t care about reading and writing).

This is a straw man argument because it misrepresents the teacher’s position, which didn’t mention anything about cutting down on reading and writing. The straw man argument is also known as the straw man fallacy .

A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy.

  • When someone claims adopting a certain policy or taking a certain action will automatically lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, this is a slippery slope argument.
  • If they don’t show a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies, then they commit a slippery slope fallacy .

There are a number of ways you can deal with slippery slope arguments especially when you suspect these are fallacious:

  • Slippery slope arguments take advantage of the gray area between an initial action or decision and the possible next steps that might lead to the undesirable outcome. You can point out these missing steps and ask your partner to indicate what evidence exists to support the claimed relationship between two or more events.
  • Ask yourself if each link in the chain of events or action is valid. Every proposition has to be true for the overall argument to work, so even if one link is irrational or not supported by evidence, then the argument collapses.
  • Sometimes people commit a slippery slope fallacy unintentionally. In these instances, use an example that demonstrates the problem with slippery slope arguments in general (e.g., by using statements to reach a conclusion that is not necessarily relevant to the initial statement). By attacking the concept of slippery slope arguments you can show that they are often fallacious.

People sometimes confuse cognitive bias and logical fallacies because they both relate to flawed thinking. However, they are not the same:

  • Cognitive bias is the tendency to make decisions or take action in an illogical way because of our values, memory, socialization, and other personal attributes. In other words, it refers to a fixed pattern of thinking rooted in the way our brain works.
  • Logical fallacies relate to how we make claims and construct our arguments in the moment. They are statements that sound convincing at first but can be disproven through logical reasoning.

In other words, cognitive bias refers to an ongoing predisposition, while logical fallacy refers to mistakes of reasoning that occur in the moment.

An appeal to ignorance (ignorance here meaning lack of evidence) is a type of informal logical fallacy .

It asserts that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false—or that something must be false because it has not yet been proven true.

For example, “unicorns exist because there is no evidence that they don’t.” The appeal to ignorance is also called the burden of proof fallacy .

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a type of informal logical fallacy . Instead of arguing against a person’s position, an ad hominem argument attacks the person’s character or actions in an effort to discredit them.

This rhetorical strategy is fallacious because a person’s character, motive, education, or other personal trait is logically irrelevant to whether their argument is true or false.

Name-calling is common in ad hominem fallacy (e.g., “environmental activists are ineffective because they’re all lazy tree-huggers”).

Ad hominem is a persuasive technique where someone tries to undermine the opponent’s argument by personally attacking them.

In this way, one can redirect the discussion away from the main topic and to the opponent’s personality without engaging with their viewpoint. When the opponent’s personality is irrelevant to the discussion, we call it an ad hominem fallacy .

Ad hominem tu quoque (‘you too”) is an attempt to rebut a claim by attacking its proponent on the grounds that they uphold a double standard or that they don’t practice what they preach. For example, someone is telling you that you should drive slowly otherwise you’ll get a speeding ticket one of these days, and you reply “but you used to get them all the time!”

Argumentum ad hominem means “argument to the person” in Latin and it is commonly referred to as ad hominem argument or personal attack. Ad hominem arguments are used in debates to refute an argument by attacking the character of the person making it, instead of the logic or premise of the argument itself.

The opposite of the hasty generalization fallacy is called slothful induction fallacy or appeal to coincidence .

It is the tendency to deny a conclusion even though there is sufficient evidence that supports it. Slothful induction occurs due to our natural tendency to dismiss events or facts that do not align with our personal biases and expectations. For example, a researcher may try to explain away unexpected results by claiming it is just a coincidence.

To avoid a hasty generalization fallacy we need to ensure that the conclusions drawn are well-supported by the appropriate evidence. More specifically:

  • In statistics , if we want to draw inferences about an entire population, we need to make sure that the sample is random and representative of the population . We can achieve that by using a probability sampling method , like simple random sampling or stratified sampling .
  • In academic writing , use precise language and measured phases. Try to avoid making absolute claims, cite specific instances and examples without applying the findings to a larger group.
  • As readers, we need to ask ourselves “does the writer demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the situation or phenomenon that would allow them to make a generalization?”

The hasty generalization fallacy and the anecdotal evidence fallacy are similar in that they both result in conclusions drawn from insufficient evidence. However, there is a difference between the two:

  • The hasty generalization fallacy involves genuinely considering an example or case (i.e., the evidence comes first and then an incorrect conclusion is drawn from this).
  • The anecdotal evidence fallacy (also known as “cherry-picking” ) is knowing in advance what conclusion we want to support, and then selecting the story (or a few stories) that support it. By overemphasizing anecdotal evidence that fits well with the point we are trying to make, we overlook evidence that would undermine our argument.

Although many sources use circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question interchangeably, others point out that there is a subtle difference between the two:

  • Begging the question fallacy occurs when you assume that an argument is true in order to justify a conclusion. If something begs the question, what you are actually asking is, “Is the premise of that argument actually true?” For example, the statement “Snakes make great pets. That’s why we should get a snake” begs the question “are snakes really great pets?”
  • Circular reasoning fallacy on the other hand, occurs when the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself.  For example, “People have free will because they can choose what to do.”

In other words, we could say begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning fallacy uses circular reasoning to support an argument. More specifically, the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself. For example: “The President of the United States is a good leader (claim), because they are the leader of this country (supporting evidence)”.

An example of a non sequitur is the following statement:

“Giving up nuclear weapons weakened the United States’ military. Giving up nuclear weapons also weakened China. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw firearms in the United States today.”

Clearly there is a step missing in this line of reasoning and the conclusion does not follow from the premise, resulting in a non sequitur fallacy .

The difference between the post hoc fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy is that post hoc fallacy infers a causal connection between two events where none exists, whereas the non sequitur fallacy infers a conclusion that lacks a logical connection to the premise.

In other words, a post hoc fallacy occurs when there is a lack of a cause-and-effect relationship, while a non sequitur fallacy occurs when there is a lack of logical connection.

An example of post hoc fallacy is the following line of reasoning:

“Yesterday I had ice cream, and today I have a terrible stomachache. I’m sure the ice cream caused this.”

Although it is possible that the ice cream had something to do with the stomachache, there is no proof to justify the conclusion other than the order of events. Therefore, this line of reasoning is fallacious.

Post hoc fallacy and hasty generalisation fallacy are similar in that they both involve jumping to conclusions. However, there is a difference between the two:

  • Post hoc fallacy is assuming a cause and effect relationship between two events, simply because one happened after the other.
  • Hasty generalisation fallacy is drawing a general conclusion from a small sample or little evidence.

In other words, post hoc fallacy involves a leap to a causal claim; hasty generalisation fallacy involves a leap to a general proposition.

The fallacy of composition is similar to and can be confused with the hasty generalization fallacy . However, there is a difference between the two:

  • The fallacy of composition involves drawing an inference about the characteristics of a whole or group based on the characteristics of its individual members.
  • The hasty generalization fallacy involves drawing an inference about a population or class of things on the basis of few atypical instances or a small sample of that population or thing.

In other words, the fallacy of composition is using an unwarranted assumption that we can infer something about a whole based on the characteristics of its parts, while the hasty generalization fallacy is using insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

The opposite of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of division . In the fallacy of division, the assumption is that a characteristic which applies to a whole or a group must necessarily apply to the parts or individual members. For example, “Australians travel a lot. Gary is Australian, so he must travel a lot.”

Base rate fallacy can be avoided by following these steps:

  • Avoid making an important decision in haste. When we are under pressure, we are more likely to resort to cognitive shortcuts like the availability heuristic and the representativeness heuristic . Due to this, we are more likely to factor in only current and vivid information, and ignore the actual probability of something happening (i.e., base rate).
  • Take a long-term view on the decision or question at hand. Look for relevant statistical data, which can reveal long-term trends and give you the full picture.
  • Talk to experts like professionals. They are more aware of probabilities related to specific decisions.

Suppose there is a population consisting of 90% psychologists and 10% engineers. Given that you know someone enjoyed physics at school, you may conclude that they are an engineer rather than a psychologist, even though you know that this person comes from a population consisting of far more psychologists than engineers.

When we ignore the rate of occurrence of some trait in a population (the base-rate information) we commit base rate fallacy .

Cost-benefit fallacy is a common error that occurs when allocating sources in project management. It is the fallacy of assuming that cost-benefit estimates are more or less accurate, when in fact they are highly inaccurate and biased. This means that cost-benefit analyses can be useful, but only after the cost-benefit fallacy has been acknowledged and corrected for. Cost-benefit fallacy is a type of base rate fallacy .

In advertising, the fallacy of equivocation is often used to create a pun. For example, a billboard company might advertise their billboards using a line like: “Looking for a sign? This is it!” The word sign has a literal meaning as billboard and a figurative one as a sign from God, the universe, etc.

Equivocation is a fallacy because it is a form of argumentation that is both misleading and logically unsound. When the meaning of a word or phrase shifts in the course of an argument, it causes confusion and also implies that the conclusion (which may be true) does not follow from the premise.

The fallacy of equivocation is an informal logical fallacy, meaning that the error lies in the content of the argument instead of the structure.

Fallacies of relevance are a group of fallacies that occur in arguments when the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Although at first there seems to be a connection between the premise and the conclusion, in reality fallacies of relevance use unrelated forms of appeal.

For example, the genetic fallacy makes an appeal to the source or origin of the claim in an attempt to assert or refute something.

The ad hominem fallacy and the genetic fallacy are closely related in that they are both fallacies of relevance. In other words, they both involve arguments that use evidence or examples that are not logically related to the argument at hand. However, there is a difference between the two:

  • In the ad hominem fallacy , the goal is to discredit the argument by discrediting the person currently making the argument.
  • In the genetic fallacy , the goal is to discredit the argument by discrediting the history or origin (i.e., genesis) of an argument.

False dilemma fallacy is also known as false dichotomy, false binary, and “either-or” fallacy. It is the fallacy of presenting only two choices, outcomes, or sides to an argument as the only possibilities, when more are available.

The false dilemma fallacy works in two ways:

  • By presenting only two options as if these were the only ones available
  • By presenting two options as mutually exclusive (i.e., only one option can be selected or can be true at a time)

In both cases, by using the false dilemma fallacy, one conceals alternative choices and doesn’t allow others to consider the full range of options. This is usually achieved through an“either-or” construction and polarised, divisive language (“you are either a friend or an enemy”).

The best way to avoid a false dilemma fallacy is to pause and reflect on two points:

  • Are the options presented truly the only ones available ? It could be that another option has been deliberately omitted.
  • Are the options mentioned mutually exclusive ? Perhaps all of the available options can be selected (or be true) at the same time, which shows that they aren’t mutually exclusive. Proving this is called “escaping between the horns of the dilemma.”

Begging the question fallacy is an argument in which you assume what you are trying to prove. In other words, your position and the justification of that position are the same, only slightly rephrased.

For example: “All freshmen should attend college orientation, because all college students should go to such an orientation.”

The complex question fallacy and begging the question fallacy are similar in that they are both based on assumptions. However, there is a difference between them:

  • A complex question fallacy occurs when someone asks a question that presupposes the answer to another question that has not been established or accepted by the other person. For example, asking someone “Have you stopped cheating on tests?”, unless it has previously been established that the person is indeed cheating on tests, is a fallacy.
  • Begging the question fallacy occurs when we assume the very thing as a premise that we’re trying to prove in our conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is used to support the premises, and the premises prove the validity of the conclusion. For example: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.”

In other words, begging the question is about drawing a conclusion based on an assumption, while a complex question involves asking a question that presupposes the answer to a prior question.

“ No true Scotsman ” arguments aren’t always fallacious. When there is a generally accepted definition of who or what constitutes a group, it’s reasonable to use statements in the form of “no true Scotsman”.

For example, the statement that “no true pacifist would volunteer for military service” is not fallacious, since a pacifist is, by definition, someone who opposes war or violence as a means of settling disputes.

No true Scotsman arguments are fallacious because instead of logically refuting the counterexample, they simply assert that it doesn’t count. In other words, the counterexample is rejected for psychological, but not logical, reasons.

The appeal to purity or no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalisation about a group from a counterexample by shifting the definition of the group in the middle of the argument. In this way, one can exclude the counterexample as not being “true”, “genuine”, or “pure” enough to be considered as part of the group in question.

To identify an appeal to authority fallacy , you can ask yourself the following questions:

  • Is the authority cited really a qualified expert in this particular area under discussion? For example, someone who has formal education or years of experience can be an expert.
  • Do experts disagree on this particular subject? If that is the case, then for almost any claim supported by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is supported by another expert. If there is no consensus, an appeal to authority is fallacious.
  • Is the authority in question biased? If you suspect that an expert’s prejudice and bias could have influenced their views, then the expert is not reliable and an argument citing this expert will be fallacious.To identify an appeal to authority fallacy, you ask yourself whether the authority cited is a qualified expert in the particular area under discussion.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy when those who use it do not provide any justification to support their argument. Instead they cite someone famous who agrees with their viewpoint, but is not qualified to make reliable claims on the subject.

Appeal to authority fallacy is often convincing because of the effect authority figures have on us. When someone cites a famous person, a well-known scientist, a politician, etc. people tend to be distracted and often fail to critically examine whether the authority figure is indeed an expert in the area under discussion.

The ad populum fallacy is common in politics. One example is the following viewpoint: “The majority of our countrymen think we should have military operations overseas; therefore, it’s the right thing to do.”

This line of reasoning is fallacious, because popular acceptance of a belief or position does not amount to a justification of that belief. In other words, following the prevailing opinion without examining the underlying reasons is irrational.

The ad populum fallacy plays on our innate desire to fit in (known as “bandwagon effect”). If many people believe something, our common sense tells us that it must be true and we tend to accept it. However, in logic, the popularity of a proposition cannot serve as evidence of its truthfulness.

Ad populum (or appeal to popularity) fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy are similar in that they both conflate the validity of a belief with its popular acceptance among a specific group. However there is a key difference between the two:

  • An ad populum fallacy tries to persuade others by claiming that something is true or right because a lot of people think so.
  • An appeal to authority fallacy tries to persuade by claiming a group of experts believe something is true or right, therefore it must be so.

To identify a false cause fallacy , you need to carefully analyse the argument:

  • When someone claims that one event directly causes another, ask if there is sufficient evidence to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. 
  • Ask if the claim is based merely on the chronological order or co-occurrence of the two events. 
  • Consider alternative possible explanations (are there other factors at play that could influence the outcome?).

By carefully analysing the reasoning, considering alternative explanations, and examining the evidence provided, you can identify a false cause fallacy and discern whether a causal claim is valid or flawed.

False cause fallacy examples include: 

  • Believing that wearing your lucky jersey will help your team win 
  • Thinking that everytime you wash your car, it rains
  • Claiming that playing video games causes violent behavior 

In each of these examples, we falsely assume that one event causes another without any proof.

The planning fallacy and procrastination are not the same thing. Although they both relate to time and task management, they describe different challenges:

  • The planning fallacy describes our inability to correctly estimate how long a future task will take, mainly due to optimism bias and a strong focus on the best-case scenario.
  • Procrastination refers to postponing a task, usually by focusing on less urgent or more enjoyable activities. This is due to psychological reasons, like fear of failure.

In other words, the planning fallacy refers to inaccurate predictions about the time we need to finish a task, while procrastination is a deliberate delay due to psychological factors.

A real-life example of the planning fallacy is the construction of the Sydney Opera House in Australia. When construction began in the late 1950s, it was initially estimated that it would be completed in four years at a cost of around $7 million.

Because the government wanted the construction to start before political opposition would stop it and while public opinion was still favorable, a number of design issues had not been carefully studied in advance. Due to this, several problems appeared immediately after the project commenced.

The construction process eventually stretched over 14 years, with the Opera House being completed in 1973 at a cost of over $100 million, significantly exceeding the initial estimates.

An example of appeal to pity fallacy is the following appeal by a student to their professor:

“Professor, please consider raising my grade. I had a terrible semester: my car broke down, my laptop got stolen, and my cat got sick.”

While these circumstances may be unfortunate, they are not directly related to the student’s academic performance.

While both the appeal to pity fallacy and   red herring fallacy can serve as a distraction from the original discussion topic, they are distinct fallacies. More specifically:

  • Appeal to pity fallacy attempts to evoke feelings of sympathy, pity, or guilt in an audience, so that they accept the speaker’s conclusion as truthful.
  • Red herring fallacy attempts to introduce an irrelevant piece of information that diverts the audience’s attention to a different topic.

Both fallacies can be used as a tool of deception. However, they operate differently and serve distinct purposes in arguments.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (Latin for “argument from pity or misery”) is another name for appeal to pity fallacy . It occurs when someone evokes sympathy or guilt in an attempt to gain support for their claim, without providing any logical reasons to support the claim itself. Appeal to pity is a deceptive tactic of argumentation, playing on people’s emotions to sway their opinion.

Yes, it’s quite common to start a sentence with a preposition, and there’s no reason not to do so.

For example, the sentence “ To many, she was a hero” is perfectly grammatical. It could also be rephrased as “She was a hero to  many”, but there’s no particular reason to do so. Both versions are fine.

Some people argue that you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition , but that “rule” can also be ignored, since it’s not supported by serious language authorities.

Yes, it’s fine to end a sentence with a preposition . The “rule” against doing so is overwhelmingly rejected by modern style guides and language authorities and is based on the rules of Latin grammar, not English.

Trying to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition often results in very unnatural phrasings. For example, turning “He knows what he’s talking about ” into “He knows about what he’s talking” or “He knows that about which he’s talking” is definitely not an improvement.

No, ChatGPT is not a credible source of factual information and can’t be cited for this purpose in academic writing . While it tries to provide accurate answers, it often gets things wrong because its responses are based on patterns, not facts and data.

Specifically, the CRAAP test for evaluating sources includes five criteria: currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose . ChatGPT fails to meet at least three of them:

  • Currency: The dataset that ChatGPT was trained on only extends to 2021, making it slightly outdated.
  • Authority: It’s just a language model and is not considered a trustworthy source of factual information.
  • Accuracy: It bases its responses on patterns rather than evidence and is unable to cite its sources .

So you shouldn’t cite ChatGPT as a trustworthy source for a factual claim. You might still cite ChatGPT for other reasons – for example, if you’re writing a paper about AI language models, ChatGPT responses are a relevant primary source .

ChatGPT is an AI language model that was trained on a large body of text from a variety of sources (e.g., Wikipedia, books, news articles, scientific journals). The dataset only went up to 2021, meaning that it lacks information on more recent events.

It’s also important to understand that ChatGPT doesn’t access a database of facts to answer your questions. Instead, its responses are based on patterns that it saw in the training data.

So ChatGPT is not always trustworthy . It can usually answer general knowledge questions accurately, but it can easily give misleading answers on more specialist topics.

Another consequence of this way of generating responses is that ChatGPT usually can’t cite its sources accurately. It doesn’t really know what source it’s basing any specific claim on. It’s best to check any information you get from it against a credible source .

No, it is not possible to cite your sources with ChatGPT . You can ask it to create citations, but it isn’t designed for this task and tends to make up sources that don’t exist or present information in the wrong format. ChatGPT also cannot add citations to direct quotes in your text.

Instead, use a tool designed for this purpose, like the Scribbr Citation Generator .

But you can use ChatGPT for assignments in other ways, to provide inspiration, feedback, and general writing advice.

GPT  stands for “generative pre-trained transformer”, which is a type of large language model: a neural network trained on a very large amount of text to produce convincing, human-like language outputs. The Chat part of the name just means “chat”: ChatGPT is a chatbot that you interact with by typing in text.

The technology behind ChatGPT is GPT-3.5 (in the free version) or GPT-4 (in the premium version). These are the names for the specific versions of the GPT model. GPT-4 is currently the most advanced model that OpenAI has created. It’s also the model used in Bing’s chatbot feature.

ChatGPT was created by OpenAI, an AI research company. It started as a nonprofit company in 2015 but became for-profit in 2019. Its CEO is Sam Altman, who also co-founded the company. OpenAI released ChatGPT as a free “research preview” in November 2022. Currently, it’s still available for free, although a more advanced premium version is available if you pay for it.

OpenAI is also known for developing DALL-E, an AI image generator that runs on similar technology to ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is owned by OpenAI, the company that developed and released it. OpenAI is a company dedicated to AI research. It started as a nonprofit company in 2015 but transitioned to for-profit in 2019. Its current CEO is Sam Altman, who also co-founded the company.

In terms of who owns the content generated by ChatGPT, OpenAI states that it will not claim copyright on this content , and the terms of use state that “you can use Content for any purpose, including commercial purposes such as sale or publication”. This means that you effectively own any content you generate with ChatGPT and can use it for your own purposes.

Be cautious about how you use ChatGPT content in an academic context. University policies on AI writing are still developing, so even if you “own” the content, you’re often not allowed to submit it as your own work according to your university or to publish it in a journal.

ChatGPT is a chatbot based on a large language model (LLM). These models are trained on huge datasets consisting of hundreds of billions of words of text, based on which the model learns to effectively predict natural responses to the prompts you enter.

ChatGPT was also refined through a process called reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which involves “rewarding” the model for providing useful answers and discouraging inappropriate answers – encouraging it to make fewer mistakes.

Essentially, ChatGPT’s answers are based on predicting the most likely responses to your inputs based on its training data, with a reward system on top of this to incentivise it to give you the most helpful answers possible. It’s a bit like an incredibly advanced version of predictive text. This is also one of ChatGPT’s limitations : because its answers are based on probabilities, they’re not always trustworthy .

OpenAI may store ChatGPT conversations for the purposes of future training. Additionally, these conversations may be monitored by human AI trainers.

Users can choose not to have their chat history saved. Unsaved chats are not used to train future models and are permanently deleted from ChatGPT’s system after 30 days.

The official ChatGPT app is currently only available on iOS devices. If you don’t have an iOS device, only use the official OpenAI website to access the tool. This helps to eliminate the potential risk of downloading fraudulent or malicious software.

ChatGPT conversations are generally used to train future models and to resolve issues/bugs. These chats may be monitored by human AI trainers.

However, users can opt out of having their conversations used for training. In these instances, chats are monitored only for potential abuse.

Yes, using ChatGPT as a conversation partner is a great way to practice a language in an interactive way.

Try using a prompt like this one:

“Please be my Spanish conversation partner. Only speak to me in Spanish. Keep your answers short (maximum 50 words). Ask me questions. Let’s start the conversation with the following topic: [conversation topic].”

Yes, there are a variety of ways to use ChatGPT for language learning , including treating it as a conversation partner, asking it for translations, and using it to generate a curriculum or practice exercises.

AI detectors aim to identify the presence of AI-generated text (e.g., from ChatGPT ) in a piece of writing, but they can’t do so with complete accuracy. In our comparison of the best AI detectors , we found that the 10 tools we tested had an average accuracy of 60%. The best free tool had 68% accuracy, the best premium tool 84%.

Because of how AI detectors work , they can never guarantee 100% accuracy, and there is always at least a small risk of false positives (human text being marked as AI-generated). Therefore, these tools should not be relied upon to provide absolute proof that a text is or isn’t AI-generated. Rather, they can provide a good indication in combination with other evidence.

Tools called AI detectors are designed to label text as AI-generated or human. AI detectors work by looking for specific characteristics in the text, such as a low level of randomness in word choice and sentence length. These characteristics are typical of AI writing, allowing the detector to make a good guess at when text is AI-generated.

But these tools can’t guarantee 100% accuracy. Check out our comparison of the best AI detectors to learn more.

You can also manually watch for clues that a text is AI-generated – for example, a very different style from the writer’s usual voice or a generic, overly polite tone.

Our research into the best summary generators (aka summarisers or summarising tools) found that the best summariser available in 2023 is the one offered by QuillBot.

While many summarisers just pick out some sentences from the text, QuillBot generates original summaries that are creative, clear, accurate, and concise. It can summarise texts of up to 1,200 words for free, or up to 6,000 with a premium subscription.

Try the QuillBot summarizer for free

Deep learning requires a large dataset (e.g., images or text) to learn from. The more diverse and representative the data, the better the model will learn to recognise objects or make predictions. Only when the training data is sufficiently varied can the model make accurate predictions or recognise objects from new data.

Deep learning models can be biased in their predictions if the training data consist of biased information. For example, if a deep learning model used for screening job applicants has been trained with a dataset consisting primarily of white male applicants, it will consistently favour this specific population over others.

A good ChatGPT prompt (i.e., one that will get you the kinds of responses you want):

  • Gives the tool a role to explain what type of answer you expect from it
  • Is precisely formulated and gives enough context
  • Is free from bias
  • Has been tested and improved by experimenting with the tool

ChatGPT prompts are the textual inputs (e.g., questions, instructions) that you enter into ChatGPT to get responses.

ChatGPT predicts an appropriate response to the prompt you entered. In general, a more specific and carefully worded prompt will get you better responses.

Yes, ChatGPT is currently available for free. You have to sign up for a free account to use the tool, and you should be aware that your data may be collected to train future versions of the model.

To sign up and use the tool for free, go to this page and click “Sign up”. You can do so with your email or with a Google account.

A premium version of the tool called ChatGPT Plus is available as a monthly subscription. It currently costs £16 and gets you access to features like GPT-4 (a more advanced version of the language model). But it’s optional: you can use the tool completely free if you’re not interested in the extra features.

You can access ChatGPT by signing up for a free account:

  • Follow this link to the ChatGPT website.
  • Click on “Sign up” and fill in the necessary details (or use your Google account). It’s free to sign up and use the tool.
  • Type a prompt into the chat box to get started!

A ChatGPT app is also available for iOS, and an Android app is planned for the future. The app works similarly to the website, and you log in with the same account for both.

According to OpenAI’s terms of use, users have the right to reproduce text generated by ChatGPT during conversations.

However, publishing ChatGPT outputs may have legal implications , such as copyright infringement.

Users should be aware of such issues and use ChatGPT outputs as a source of inspiration instead.

According to OpenAI’s terms of use, users have the right to use outputs from their own ChatGPT conversations for any purpose (including commercial publication).

However, users should be aware of the potential legal implications of publishing ChatGPT outputs. ChatGPT responses are not always unique: different users may receive the same response.

Furthermore, ChatGPT outputs may contain copyrighted material. Users may be liable if they reproduce such material.

ChatGPT can sometimes reproduce biases from its training data , since it draws on the text it has “seen” to create plausible responses to your prompts.

For example, users have shown that it sometimes makes sexist assumptions such as that a doctor mentioned in a prompt must be a man rather than a woman. Some have also pointed out political bias in terms of which political figures the tool is willing to write positively or negatively about and which requests it refuses.

The tool is unlikely to be consistently biased toward a particular perspective or against a particular group. Rather, its responses are based on its training data and on the way you phrase your ChatGPT prompts . It’s sensitive to phrasing, so asking it the same question in different ways will result in quite different answers.

Information extraction  refers to the process of starting from unstructured sources (e.g., text documents written in ordinary English) and automatically extracting structured information (i.e., data in a clearly defined format that’s easily understood by computers). It’s an important concept in natural language processing (NLP) .

For example, you might think of using news articles full of celebrity gossip to automatically create a database of the relationships between the celebrities mentioned (e.g., married, dating, divorced, feuding). You would end up with data in a structured format, something like MarriageBetween(celebrity 1 ,celebrity 2 ,date) .

The challenge involves developing systems that can “understand” the text well enough to extract this kind of data from it.

Knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) is the study of how to represent information about the world in a form that can be used by a computer system to solve and reason about complex problems. It is an important field of artificial intelligence (AI) research.

An example of a KRR application is a semantic network, a way of grouping words or concepts by how closely related they are and formally defining the relationships between them so that a machine can “understand” language in something like the way people do.

A related concept is information extraction , concerned with how to get structured information from unstructured sources.

Yes, you can use ChatGPT to summarise text . This can help you understand complex information more easily, summarise the central argument of your own paper, or clarify your research question.

You can also use Scribbr’s free text summariser , which is designed specifically for this purpose.

Yes, you can use ChatGPT to paraphrase text to help you express your ideas more clearly, explore different ways of phrasing your arguments, and avoid repetition.

However, it’s not specifically designed for this purpose. We recommend using a specialised tool like Scribbr’s free paraphrasing tool , which will provide a smoother user experience.

Yes, you use ChatGPT to help write your college essay by having it generate feedback on certain aspects of your work (consistency of tone, clarity of structure, etc.).

However, ChatGPT is not able to adequately judge qualities like vulnerability and authenticity. For this reason, it’s important to also ask for feedback from people who have experience with college essays and who know you well. Alternatively, you can get advice using Scribbr’s essay editing service .

No, having ChatGPT write your college essay can negatively impact your application in numerous ways. ChatGPT outputs are unoriginal and lack personal insight.

Furthermore, Passing off AI-generated text as your own work is considered academically dishonest . AI detectors may be used to detect this offense, and it’s highly unlikely that any university will accept you if you are caught submitting an AI-generated admission essay.

However, you can use ChatGPT to help write your college essay during the preparation and revision stages (e.g., for brainstorming ideas and generating feedback).

ChatGPT and other AI writing tools can have unethical uses. These include:

  • Reproducing biases and false information
  • Using ChatGPT to cheat in academic contexts
  • Violating the privacy of others by inputting personal information

However, when used correctly, AI writing tools can be helpful resources for improving your academic writing and research skills. Some ways to use ChatGPT ethically include:

  • Following your institution’s guidelines
  • Critically evaluating outputs
  • Being transparent about how you used the tool

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

Support team - Nina

Our support team is here to help you daily via chat, WhatsApp, email, or phone between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. CET.

Our APA experts default to APA 7 for editing and formatting. For the Citation Editing Service you are able to choose between APA 6 and 7.

Yes, if your document is longer than 20,000 words, you will get a sample of approximately 2,000 words. This sample edit gives you a first impression of the editor’s editing style and a chance to ask questions and give feedback.

How does the sample edit work?

You will receive the sample edit within 24 hours after placing your order. You then have 24 hours to let us know if you’re happy with the sample or if there’s something you would like the editor to do differently.

Read more about how the sample edit works

Yes, you can upload your document in sections.

We try our best to ensure that the same editor checks all the different sections of your document. When you upload a new file, our system recognizes you as a returning customer, and we immediately contact the editor who helped you before.

However, we cannot guarantee that the same editor will be available. Your chances are higher if

  • You send us your text as soon as possible and
  • You can be flexible about the deadline.

Please note that the shorter your deadline is, the lower the chance that your previous editor is not available.

If your previous editor isn’t available, then we will inform you immediately and look for another qualified editor. Fear not! Every Scribbr editor follows the  Scribbr Improvement Model  and will deliver high-quality work.

Yes, our editors also work during the weekends and holidays.

Because we have many editors available, we can check your document 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, all year round.

If you choose a 72 hour deadline and upload your document on a Thursday evening, you’ll have your thesis back by Sunday evening!

Yes! Our editors are all native speakers, and they have lots of experience editing texts written by ESL students. They will make sure your grammar is perfect and point out any sentences that are difficult to understand. They’ll also notice your most common mistakes, and give you personal feedback to improve your writing in English.

Every Scribbr order comes with our award-winning Proofreading & Editing service , which combines two important stages of the revision process.

For a more comprehensive edit, you can add a Structure Check or Clarity Check to your order. With these building blocks, you can customize the kind of feedback you receive.

You might be familiar with a different set of editing terms. To help you understand what you can expect at Scribbr, we created this table:

View an example

When you place an order, you can specify your field of study and we’ll match you with an editor who has familiarity with this area.

However, our editors are language specialists, not academic experts in your field. Your editor’s job is not to comment on the content of your dissertation, but to improve your language and help you express your ideas as clearly and fluently as possible.

This means that your editor will understand your text well enough to give feedback on its clarity, logic and structure, but not on the accuracy or originality of its content.

Good academic writing should be understandable to a non-expert reader, and we believe that academic editing is a discipline in itself. The research, ideas and arguments are all yours – we’re here to make sure they shine!

After your document has been edited, you will receive an email with a link to download the document.

The editor has made changes to your document using ‘Track Changes’ in Word. This means that you only have to accept or ignore the changes that are made in the text one by one.

It is also possible to accept all changes at once. However, we strongly advise you not to do so for the following reasons:

  • You can learn a lot by looking at the mistakes you made.
  • The editors don’t only change the text – they also place comments when sentences or sometimes even entire paragraphs are unclear. You should read through these comments and take into account your editor’s tips and suggestions.
  • With a final read-through, you can make sure you’re 100% happy with your text before you submit!

You choose the turnaround time when ordering. We can return your dissertation within 24 hours , 3 days or 1 week . These timescales include weekends and holidays. As soon as you’ve paid, the deadline is set, and we guarantee to meet it! We’ll notify you by text and email when your editor has completed the job.

Very large orders might not be possible to complete in 24 hours. On average, our editors can complete around 13,000 words in a day while maintaining our high quality standards. If your order is longer than this and urgent, contact us to discuss possibilities.

Always leave yourself enough time to check through the document and accept the changes before your submission deadline.

Scribbr is specialised in editing study related documents. We check:

  • Graduation projects
  • Dissertations
  • Admissions essays
  • College essays
  • Application essays
  • Personal statements
  • Process reports
  • Reflections
  • Internship reports
  • Academic papers
  • Research proposals
  • Prospectuses

Calculate the costs

The fastest turnaround time is 24 hours.

You can upload your document at any time and choose between three deadlines:

At Scribbr, we promise to make every customer 100% happy with the service we offer. Our philosophy: Your complaint is always justified – no denial, no doubts.

Our customer support team is here to find the solution that helps you the most, whether that’s a free new edit or a refund for the service.

Yes, in the order process you can indicate your preference for American, British, or Australian English .

If you don’t choose one, your editor will follow the style of English you currently use. If your editor has any questions about this, we will contact you.

Pediaa.Com

Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

What is the Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

The main difference between thesis and research paper is that thesis is a long academic paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree, while research paper is a piece of academic writing on a particular topic.

In brief, both thesis and research paper are types of academic writing students need to complete in their academic life. While there are many similarities between the two, including the use of academic writing and structure, they are not the same. 

Key Areas Covered

1.  What is a Thesis       – Definition, Features 2.  What is a Research Paper      – Definition, Features 3.  Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper     – Comparison of Key Differences

Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper - Comparison Summary

What is a Thesis

A thesis is a long paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree. Submitting a thesis is generally required for completing undergraduate honours, masters , and  doctoral degrees . The theses are very long and may contain hundreds of pages. They are also scholarly in nature and allows students to contribute valuable research in their field of study.

Moreover, a major part of a thesis work involves research and writing. It generally has advanced  research design  and analysis. When writing a thesis, the students will have to prove or disapprove a  hypothesis , and their conclusions have to be backed by extensive research and an insightful, learned description of how they got to that conclusion. In some degree programs, students also have to perform an oral defence of the thesis paper in front of a panel of experts.

Components of a Thesis

These are the components you will usually find in a thesis paper.

  • Title Page                       
  • Abstract           
  • Table of Contents           
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables           
  • Introduction           
  • Methods           
  • Discussion             
  • Conclusions
  • Recommendations           
  • Acknowledgements
  • References             

What is a Research Paper

A research paper is a type of academic writing that involves research, source evaluation, critical thinking, organization, and composition. Moreover, through a research paper, students can explore, interpret, and evaluate sources related to a particular topic. In fact, primary and secondary sources are very important components of a research paper. But it’s important to note that a research paper is not just a summary of a topic using primary and secondary sources. It’s not just an opinion essay or an expository essay that contains the writer’s opinions and views, either. A research paper is a type of writing that requires evaluating different sources and interpreting the information of these sources through one’s own lens. Furthermore, the main purpose of this type of writing is to offer a unique perspective on a topic analyzing and evaluating what others have already said about it.

Thesis vs Research Paper

In addition, there are different types of research papers. Argumentative research papers and analytical research papers are two of the main types of research papers.

Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

A thesis or dissertation is a long academic paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree while a research paper is a type of academic writing that involves research, source evaluation, critical thinking, organization, and composition.

In an Academic Context

In an academic context, students may be required to write research papers for assignments and homework, but a thesis is usually the final project.

A thesis tends to be longer than a research paper; in fact, a thesis can take many months, sometimes years, to complete.

Supervision

The thesis is written under the supervision of one or more academic supervisors whereas research papers usually do not have supervisors.

Students have to complete a thesis in order to complete their degree, whereas students write research papers to expand their knowledge.

In brief, the main difference between thesis and research paper is that thesis is a long research paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree, while a research paper is a piece of academic writing on a particular topic. Moreover, in an academic context, students may be required to write research papers for assignments and homework. But the thesis is usually the final project.

1. Stute, Martin. “ How to Write Your Thesis .” Columbia University. 2. “ Genre and the Research Paper .” Purdue Writing Lab.

Image Courtesy:

1. “ Research Paper ” (CC BY-SA 3.0) By Nick Youngson via Alpha Stock Images 

' src=

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Planning Tank

Difference between a research paper, dissertation & thesis

When it comes to writing academic papers, students should have the right skills if they must succeed. Whether it is doing a weekly essay assignment, crafting a term paper, or doing research, the best learners are those who have mastered the art of literary composition. You should also note that understanding how each school paper differs from the other puts you ahead of the pack. Most of the schools, universities and institutions require you to undertake research at some point or another in form of coursework .

Often, students mistake research for term papers or thesis for dissertations. The worst-case scenario is when instead of writing a thesis; you end up with a dissertation paper. Such is an occurrence that often denies students marks. And so, the big question we want to answer in this post is what the differences between research, dissertation, and thesis are? Keep reading to learn more.

Writing Research

First things first note that variations between different types of academic papers could be in the form of writing style , definition, presentation of arguments, not to mention the purpose of writing and level of academia.  You should not expect high school students, for example, to partake in thesis writing. But when it comes to writing research papers, it can happen at any level of academia right from high school through college and university.

Note: There are differences in how these terminologies are used. In few countries they are used interchangeably, while in other countries thesis is related to bachelor’s or master’s degree course and dissertation is used in the context of a doctorate degree, whereas in some countries the reverse is true. For example, in Indian context, PhD students are required to submit a “thesis” whereas M. Phil students are required to submit a dissertation. Thesis is considered to be much longer form of research which is opposite in case of USA.

Differences based on the definition

Definitive differences between academic papers simplify things for a college newbie yet to write his or her academic paper. Now, on defining the thesis, research and dissertation, the following are worth noting:

  • A research paper refers to a piece of literary composition, often a class requirement. The most notable aspect of research papers is that before you craft them, you must gather knowledge independently. After collecting data and information, students then put together findings in a descriptive format. Learners must also present their arguments based on their evaluation of a subject under study. A good research paper opens the gates to advanced academic writing which will involve the implementation of findings.
  • A dissertation is a paper that students write as a requirement for the conferment of a diploma or degree. In some countries, Ph.D. students also write dissertations.
  • A thesis is a paper students craft as a requirement for a degree at college or university level. You do realize that all the three types of academic papers lead to something, often an academic qualification that would see one earn a degree or get admitted to the next level of academia.

Length of paper and methodology

While the methodology of writing these papers is similar, often constituting sections such as introduction, abstract, literature review, research method, presentation/finings, discussions, conclusion and recommendations, the length of each paper does vary. Research papers and dissertations are generally long. However, thesis papers tend to be short hence requiring less time to write. Dissertations and research require a comprehensive study of a study and gathering information/data. You, therefore, spend more time on them before and during writing. You may even use an editing service to help you research, write, and proofread your dissertation properly.

Differences based on knowledge inference and hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess. Before you conduct a study, assumptions have to be made that something will turn out in some way. Most importantly, how the outcome will impact a population informs the construction of a hypothesis/thesis statement. In research and dissertation writing, students must exhibit a rigorous understanding of a subject based on a study. It is on this premise that they must come up with/infer a meaningful conclusion. However, when writing thesis papers, the formulation of a hypothesis comes after researching and writing on a subject.

Differences based on the approach

How students go about crafting research, dissertation and thesis is another way of differentiating the three papers. In writing research and dissertation papers, students must use existing pieces of literature to back their findings. However, thesis papers more often rely on existing research work to prove a point. You can, for example, sample different research papers on climate change to prove your study on the same. Ostensibly, you are using existing and published academic papers to ascertain that phenomena or a problem exist.

Mode of publication and utilization

You should also note that academic papers exhibit differences based on the reason for which they get published and also how people use them. Dissertation papers are like complete and newly published books given their voluminous nature. You could refer to yours as an academic book. It makes you a published author. However, thesis and research work are like articles that shed light on a subject but not as comprehensively as dissertations.

Differences based on the level of academia

While students can write research papers at any level, they are most common at the undergraduate level. Completion of a research paper often leads to the conferment of an undergraduate degree. And when it comes to writing dissertation papers, the bargain is qualifying for a master’s degree, thusly; postgraduate, Mphil or MBA.  It means if you are not writing a dissertation to obtain a postgraduate degree, you do so as a means of enrolling in a postgraduate program. Thesis papers lead to the conferment of a Ph.D. degree or a doctorate as some scholars call it. Students who write thesis papers do so within the last two years of their academic life.

Final Thoughts

Many factors distinguish academic papers. But regardless of the methodology or purpose of these papers, the most important thing is that students showcase their literary skills. Moreover, academic paper tests the knowledge of students on different issues and subjects. Whether it is writing about how past events led to present-day situations or how human activities will lead to something happening in the future, knowledge dispensation helps societies grow.

In the interest of time, research work involved in crafting academic papers is meant to unearth critical findings on a subject and provide solutions to an existing problem. As a rule of the thumb, students who write research, dissertation or thesis papers must demonstrate their understanding of the society and problems that bedevil it. It is through doing so that recommendations for solving a problem become trustworthy, dependable, acceptable and applicable. Most importantly, learners must meet a set academic threshold before writing the above papers.

About The Author

difference between thesis and action research

Leave 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.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

IMAGES

  1. 6 Major difference between Thesis and Research Paper

    difference between thesis and action research

  2. Basic research vs. action research

    difference between thesis and action research

  3. What is the Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

    difference between thesis and action research

  4. Thesis vs. Dissertation vs. Research Paper

    difference between thesis and action research

  5. Dissertation vs. Thesis: What’s the Difference?

    difference between thesis and action research

  6. Thesis vs. Dissertation vs. Research Paper

    difference between thesis and action research

VIDEO

  1. Kaibahan ng thesis at dissertation

  2. Thesis Abstract and Research Article Abstract

  3. Thesis Statement , Placement and Rhythm, Importance in Essay

  4. Differences Between Thesis and Dissertation

  5. Difference between PhD and MPhil Theses

  6. What is Action Research?

COMMENTS

  1. What Is Action Research?

    Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time. It was first coined as a term in 1944 by MIT professor Kurt Lewin.A highly interactive method, action research is often used in the social ...

  2. Action research within organisations and university thesis writing

    Abstract. This paper argues that action research is more appropriate than traditional research for improving practice, and professional and organisational learning. Our particular aim is to help postgraduates in the social and human sciences to understand and clarify the difference between core action research and thesis action research; that ...

  3. Thesis vs. Research Paper: Know the Differences

    Defining the two terms: thesis vs. research paper. The first step to discerning between a thesis and research paper is to know what they signify. Thesis: A thesis or a dissertation is an academic document that a candidate writes to acquire a university degree or similar qualification. Students typically submit a thesis at the end of their final ...

  4. You want to do an action research thesis?

    It seems reasonable that there can be choices between action research and other paradigms, and within action research a choice of approaches. The choice you make will depend upon your weighing up of the many advantages and disadvantages. ... To prepare for the eventual thesis, look beyond the differences to the underlying issues. If you can ...

  5. Action research within organisations and university thesis writing

    Action. research involves action learning, but not vice versa, because action research is more. 4. deliberate, systematic, critical, emancipatory and rigorous. Thus action research is more ...

  6. What Is a Thesis?

    A thesis is a type of research paper based on your original research. It is usually submitted as the final step of a master's program or a capstone to a bachelor's degree. Writing a thesis can be a daunting experience. Other than a dissertation, it is one of the longest pieces of writing students typically complete.

  7. Types of Research Designs Compared

    Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples. Published on June 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes.Revised on June 22, 2023. When you start planning a research project, developing research questions and creating a research design, you will have to make various decisions about the type of research you want to do.. There are many ways to categorize different types of research.

  8. The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences

    It also presents two conceptual models that illustrate the differences between the "research" and thesis "writing" activities and processes in general, and the collaborative core action research in the fieldwork and the critical action research thesis that needs to be the candidate's independent contribution to knowledge in theory and ...

  9. Action Research vs. Case Study

    Action research is a research methodology that involves active participation and collaboration between researchers and practitioners to address real-world problems. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a particular individual, group, or situation to understand its complexities and unique characteristics.

  10. Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper: Unraveling the

    In conclusion, the difference between a thesis and a research paper lies in their purpose, scope, originality, structure, evaluation, and length. A thesis represents the culmination of a student's academic journey, aiming to obtain a higher degree and contribute new knowledge to the academic community. It requires extensive research, in-depth ...

  11. Differences Between Action Research And Traditional Research Methods

    explore, confirm, or. challenge existing theories. A traditional study in the social sciences might aim to examine the impact of social media on youth self-esteem, using surveys and statistical analysis to draw conclusions. Conversely, action research is more pragmatic, designed to solve real-world problems.

  12. Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

    While both thesis and research papers are academic writings, there is a difference between the two. A thesis refers to a scholarly research report that a scholar writes and submits for fulfilling academic requirements and obtaining a higher degree. It opens up various lines of enquiry into a range of possibilities like an antithesis.

  13. What Is Action Research?

    Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time. It was first coined as a term in 1944 by MIT professor Kurt Lewin. A highly interactive method, action research is often used in the social ...

  14. Action Research and Scientific Method: Presumed Discrepancies and

    2. Susman and Evered (1978) also viewed AR and SM as differing on other dimensions, such as (a) the language used for describing units (connotative and metaphorical versus denotative and observational), (b) basis for assuming existence of units (human artifacts for human purposes versus independent existence of human beings), (c) epistemological aims (development of guides for taking action ...

  15. PDF The Difference of Action Research with Traditional Research

    Table 1. Differences between traditional and action research Looking at the table above we can say that traditional research then attempts theorization in relation to a small number of alternations and is for the sole purpose of providing problem-solving solutions. Action Research, on the other hand, seeks decentralize strategies for specific

  16. The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences

    It also presents two conceptual models that illustrate the differences between the "research" and thesis "writing" activities and processes in general, and the collaborative core action research in the fieldwork and the critical action research thesis that needs to be the candidate's independent contribution to knowledge in theory and ...

  17. Traditional Research vs. Action Research

    Traditional research typically targets academia as its primary and most common audience. In contrast, action research has a broader and more inclusive audience, resulting from a collaborative cyclic process involving the researcher, the organization, and the community. In traditional research, knowledge is produced through the testing of theories.

  18. What is the difference between a dissertation and a thesis?

    The words ' dissertation ' and 'thesis' both refer to a large written research project undertaken to complete a degree, but they are used differently depending on the country: In the UK, you write a dissertation at the end of a bachelor's or master's degree, and you write a thesis to complete a PhD.

  19. Experimental Research VS Action Research

    Experimental research is called so because of specific quantitative design. The action research comes in a wide variety of "evaluative, investigative, and analytical research methods designed to ...

  20. What is the Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper

    Conclusion. In brief, the main difference between thesis and research paper is that thesis is a long research paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree, while a research paper is a piece of academic writing on a particular topic. Moreover, in an academic context, students may be required to write research papers ...

  21. Difference between a research paper, dissertation & thesis

    A good research paper opens the gates to advanced academic writing which will involve the implementation of findings. A dissertation is a paper that students write as a requirement for the conferment of a diploma or degree. In some countries, Ph.D. students also write dissertations. A thesis is a paper students craft as a requirement for a ...

  22. What is the difference between a research paper and a Master's thesis

    Dec 28, 2016 at 18:12. 1. One thing that might be expected in a master's thesis is that you will prove you know something, whereas in a research paper the purpose is different. - Michael Hardy. Dec 29, 2016 at 22:29.