importance of research study to students

Empowering students to develop research skills

February 8, 2021

This post is republished from   Into Practice ,  a biweekly communication of Harvard’s  Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning

Terence D. Capellini, Richard B Wolf Associate Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology, empowers students to grow as researchers in his Building the Human Body course through a comprehensive, course-long collaborative project that works to understand the changes in the genome that make the human skeleton unique. For instance, of the many types of projects, some focus on the genetic basis of why human beings walk on two legs. This integrative “Evo-Devo” project demands high levels of understanding of biology and genetics that students gain in the first half of class, which is then applied hands-on in the second half of class. Students work in teams of 2-3 to collect their own morphology data by measuring skeletons at the Harvard Museum of Natural History and leverage statistics to understand patterns in their data. They then collect and analyze DNA sequences from humans and other animals to identify the DNA changes that may encode morphology. Throughout this course, students go from sometimes having “limited experience in genetics and/or morphology” to conducting their own independent research. This project culminates in a team presentation and a final research paper.

The benefits: Students develop the methodological skills required to collect and analyze morphological data. Using the UCSC Genome browser  and other tools, students sharpen their analytical skills to visualize genomics data and pinpoint meaningful genetic changes. Conducting this work in teams means students develop collaborative skills that model academic biology labs outside class, and some student projects have contributed to published papers in the field. “Every year, I have one student, if not two, join my lab to work on projects developed from class to try to get them published.”

“The beauty of this class is that the students are asking a question that’s never been asked before and they’re actually collecting data to get at an answer.”

The challenges:  Capellini observes that the most common challenge faced by students in the course is when “they have a really terrific question they want to explore, but the necessary background information is simply lacking. It is simply amazing how little we do know about human development, despite its hundreds of years of study.” Sometimes, for instance, students want to learn about the evolution, development, and genetics of a certain body part, but it is still somewhat a mystery to the field. In these cases, the teaching team (including co-instructor Dr. Neil Roach) tries to find datasets that are maximally relevant to the questions the students want to explore. Capellini also notes that the work in his class is demanding and hard, just by the nature of the work, but students “always step up and perform” and the teaching team does their best to “make it fun” and ensure they nurture students’ curiosities and questions.

Takeaways and best practices

• Incorporate previous students’ work into the course. Capellini intentionally discusses findings from previous student groups in lectures. “They’re developing real findings and we share that when we explain the project for the next groups.” Capellini also invites students to share their own progress and findings as part of class discussion, which helps them participate as independent researchers and receive feedback from their peers.
• Assign groups intentionally.  Maintaining flexibility allows the teaching team to be more responsive to students’ various needs and interests. Capellini will often place graduate students by themselves to enhance their workload and give them training directly relevant to their future thesis work. Undergraduates are able to self-select into groups or can be assigned based on shared interests. “If two people are enthusiastic about examining the knee, for instance, we’ll match them together.”
• Consider using multiple types of assessments.  Capellini notes that exams and quizzes are administered in the first half of the course and scaffolded so that students can practice the skills they need to successfully apply course material in the final project. “Lots of the initial examples are hypothetical,” he explains, even grounded in fiction and pop culture references, “but [students] have to eventually apply the skills they learned in addressing the hypothetical example to their own real example and the data they generate” for the Evo-Devo project. This is coupled with a paper and a presentation treated like a conference talk.

Bottom line:  Capellini’s top advice for professors looking to help their own students grow as researchers is to ensure research projects are designed with intentionality and fully integrated into the syllabus. “You can’t simply tack it on at the end,” he underscores. “If you want this research project to be a substantive learning opportunity, it has to happen from Day 1.” That includes carving out time in class for students to work on it and make the connections they need to conduct research. “Listen to your students and learn about them personally” so you can tap into what they’re excited about. Have some fun in the course, and they’ll be motivated to do the work.

1 Chapter 1: The Importance of Research Methods and Becoming an Informed Consumer of Research

Case study : student apprehension regarding research methods.

Research Study

Understanding and Measuring Student Apprehension in Criminal Justice Research Methods Courses 1

Research Question

How do we measure disinterest, relevance argumentation, and math anxiety experienced by students enrolled in research methods courses?

Methodology

It is said that “misery loves company,” so you are not alone in your apprehension and anxiety regarding your research methods course. The problem of student apprehension and anxiety related to taking a research methods course is not new and has been studied for over 25 years. Previously, such apprehension and anxiety appeared to be caused by math anxiety, especially as it applies to statistics. The authors of this article believe that student apprehension goes beyond math anxiety; that math anxiety is too simplistic of an explanation of student fear of research methods courses. Besides math anxiety, the researchers think that apprehension is caused by student indifference to the subject matter and irrelevance of the course because it does not apply to the “real world.” They state that student apprehension in research methods and statistics courses is due to three main factors:

Disinterest (D.);

Relevance Argumentation (RA.), and;

Math Anxiety (MA.).

Taken together, the reconceptualization is known as D.RA.MA., and the combination of these three factors constitutes the D.RA.MA. scale for research methods and statistics courses.

The researchers developed the D.RA.MA. scale by constructing survey questions to measure each factor in the scale (i.e., disinterest, relevance argumentation, and math anxiety). After they developed the survey, they tested it by distributing the survey to three criminal justice classes, totaling 80 students, from a midsized regional comprehensive university in the southern region of the United States. Higher scale scores demonstrate more disinterest, more relevance argumentation, or more math anxiety.

The D.RA.MA. scale consists of 20 survey questions. Ten questions were borrowed from an existing Math Anxiety scale developed by Betz 2 . The researchers then created five items to assess Disinterest and five items intended to measure Relevance Argumentation. The items for the D.RA.MA. scale are illustrated below.

Math Anxiety 3

I usually have been at ease in math classes.

Math does not scare me at all.

I am no good at math.

I don’t think that I could do advanced math.

Generally, I have been secure about attempting math.

For some reason, even though I study, math seems unusually hard for me.

Math has been my worst subject.

My mind goes blank and I am unable to think clearly when working in mathematics.

I think I could handle more difficult math.

I am not the type to do well in mathematics.

Relevance Argumentation 4

I will need research methods for my future work.

I view research methods as a subject that I will rarely use.

Research methods is not really useful for students who intend to work in Criminal Justice.

Knowing research methods will help me earn a living.

Research methods does not reflect the “real world.”

Research Disinterest 5

I am excited about taking research methods.

It would not bother me at all to take more research methods courses.

I expect a research methods class to be boring.

I don’t expect to learn much in research methods.

I really don’t care if I learn anything in research methods, as long as I get the requirement completed.

The Math Anxiety Scale responses for the 80 students ranged from 0 to 30 with a mean of 14, demonstrating a moderate level of math anxiety among the study participants. The responses for Relevance Argumentation ranged from 0 to 12 with a mean of 5.4 while those for Disinterest ranged from 1 to 15 with a mean of 7.0, demonstrating a moderate level of disinterest and relevance argumentation among students regarding research methods. Based on these findings, the study demonstrated that student apprehension regarding research methods courses goes beyond math anxiety and includes two additional factors; disinterest in the subject matter and irrelevance of research methods to the “real world.”

Limitations with the Study Procedure

This research study was designed to develop a broader measure of student apprehension in criminal justice research methods courses. Moving beyond just math anxiety, the researchers accomplished their objective by developing the D.RA.MA. scale; adding disinterest and relevance argumentation to the understanding of student apprehension regarding research methods. As is true for all research, this study is not without limitations. The biggest limitation of this study is the limited sample size. Only 80 students completed the survey. Although this is certainly a good start, similar research (i.e., replication) needs to be completed with larger student samples in different locations throughout the country before the actual quality of the D.RA.MA. scale can be determined.

Impact on Criminal Justice

The D.RA.MA. scale developed in this study identifies disinterest and relevance argumentation, in addition to math anxiety, as part of student apprehension and resistance to research methods. A variety of instructional strategies can be inferred from the D.RA.MA. survey. However, it is important for professors to recognize that no single approach will reduce research methods resistance and apprehension for all students. For example, discussing research methods in a popular culture framework may resonate with students and lead to engaged students who are more interested in the subject matter and identify with the relevance of research methods to criminal justice in general and the future careers of students, in particular. This approach may provide an effective means for combating student disinterest and relevance argumentation in criminal justice research methods courses. At a minimum, it is critical for professors to explain the relevance of research methods to the policies and practices of police, courts, and corrections. Students need to realize that research methods are essential tools for assessing agency policies and practices. Professors will always have D.RA.MA.-plagued students, but recognizing the problem and then developing effective strategies to connect with these students is the challenge all professors face. Experimenting with a multitude of teaching strategies to alleviate the math anxiety, relevance argumentation, and disinterest of criminal justice research methods students will result in more effective teaching and learning.

In This Chapter You Will Learn

What research is and why it is important to be an informed consumer of research

The sources of knowledge development and problems with each

How research methods can dispel myths about crime and the criminal justice system

The steps in the research process

How research has impacted criminal justice operations

Introduction

As noted in the chapter opening case study, it is expected that you have some anxiety and apprehension about taking this criminal justice research methods course. But, you have taken a significant step toward success in this course by opening up your research methods book, so congratulations are in order. You might have opened this book for a number of reasons. Perhaps it is the first day of class and you are ready to get started on the course material. Perhaps you have a quiz or exam soon. Perhaps the book has been gathering dust on your shelf since the first day of class and you are not doing well in your research methods class and are looking for the book to help with course improvement. Perhaps you are taking a research methods class in the future and are seeing if all the chatter among students is true.

No matter how you got here, two things are probably true. First, you are taking this research methods course because it is a requirement for your major. The bottom line is that most of the students who read this text are required to take a research methods course. While you may think studying research methods is irrelevant to your career goals, unnecessary, overly academic, or perhaps even intimidating, you probably must finish this course in order to graduate. Second, you have heard negative comments about this course. The negative comments mention the difficulty of the course and the relevance of the course (e.g., “I am going to be a police officer, so why do I need to take a research methods course?”). If you are like most students we have experienced in our research methods courses in the past, you are not initially interested in this course and are concerned about whether you will do well in it.

If you are concerned about the course, realize that you are not alone because most students are anxious about taking a research methods course. Also realize that your professor is well aware of student anxiety and apprehension regarding research methods. So, relax and do not think about the entire course and the entire book. Take the course content one chapter, one week at a time. One of the advantages of taking a research methods course is that you learn about the process of research methods. Each chapter builds upon the previous chapters, illustrating and discussing more about the research process. This is certainly an advantage, but it is also critical that you understand the initial chapters in this book so you are not confused with the content discussed in later chapters. In addition to anxiety and apprehension over the course material, research methods can be boring if you only read and learn about it with no particular purpose in mind. Although examples are prevalent throughout the book, as you read this material, it is recommended that you think about the relevancy and application of the topics covered in this book to your specific criminal justice interests. As you continue to read the book, think about how you might use the information you are reading in your current position or your intended profession.

The goal of this research methods book is to develop you into an informed consumer of research. Most, if not all, of your fellow classmates will never conduct their own research studies. However, every one of you will be exposed to research findings in your professional and personal lives for the remainder of your lives. You are exposed to research findings in the media (e.g., television, newspapers, and online), in personal interaction with others (e.g., friends and family, doctors, and professors), as well as in class. You should challenge yourself for this semester to keep a journal and document exposure to research in your daily life outside of college whether through the nightly news, newspapers, magazine articles, Internet, personal conversations, or other means. At the end of the semester, you will be amazed at the amount of research you are exposed to in a short period of time. This book is focused on research exposure and assisting you to become an educated consumer of research by providing you the skills necessary to differentiate between good and not so good research. Why should you believe research findings if the study is faulty? Without being an educated consumer of research, you will not be able to differentiate between useful and not useful research. This book is designed to remedy this problem.

This book was written to make your first encounter with research methods relevant and successful while providing you the tools necessary to become an educated consumer of research. Therefore, this book is written with the assumption that students have not had a prior class on research methods. In addition, this book assumes that practical and evaluative knowledge of research methods is more useful than theoretical knowledge of the development of research methods and the relationship between theory and research. Since the focus of this book is on consumerism, not researcher training, practical and evaluative knowledge is more useful than theoretical knowledge.

It is also important to understand that the professors who design academic programs in criminal justice at the associate and bachelor level believe that an understanding of research methods is important for students. That is why, more than likely, this research methods course is a required course in your degree program. These professors understand that a solid understanding of research methods will enrich the qualifications of students for employment and performance in their criminal justice careers.

As previously stated, the basic goal of this book is to make students, as future and possibly even current practitioners in the criminal justice system, better informed and more capable consumers of the results of criminal justice research. This goal is based on the belief that an understanding of research methods allows criminal justice practitioners to be better able to make use of the results of research as it applies to their work-related duties. In fact, thousands of research questions are asked and answered each year in research involving criminal justice and criminological topics. In addition, thousands of articles are published, papers presented at conferences, and reports prepared that provide answers to these questions. The ability to understand research gives practitioners knowledge of the most current information in their respective fields and the ability to use this knowledge to improve the effectiveness of criminal justice agencies.

How Do We Know What We Know? Sources of Knowledge

The reality is the understanding of crime and criminal justice system operations by the public is frequently the product of misguided assumptions, distorted interpretations, outright myths, and hardened ideological positions. 6 This is a bold statement that basically contends that most people’s knowledge of crime and criminal justice is inaccurate. But, how do these inaccuracies occur? Most people have learned what they know about crime and criminal justice system operations through some other means besides scientific research results and findings. Some of that knowledge is based on personal experience and common sense. Much of it is based on the information and images supported by politicians, governmental agencies, and especially the media. This section will discuss the mechanisms used to understand crime and criminal justice operations by the public. It is important to note that although this section will focus on the failings of these knowledge sources, they each can be, and certainly are, accurate at times, and thus are valuable sources of knowledge.

Knowledge from Authority

We gain knowledge from parents, teachers, experts, and others who are in positions of authority in our lives. When we accept something as being correct and true just because someone in a position of authority says it is true, we are using what is referred to as authority knowledge as a means of knowing. Authorities often expend significant time and effort to learn something, and we can benefit from their experience and work.

However, relying on authority as a means of knowing has limitations. It is easy to overestimate the expertise of other people. A person’s expertise is typically limited to a few core areas of significant knowledge; a person is not an expert in all areas. More specifically, criminal justice professors are not experts on all topics related to criminal justice. One professor may be an expert on corrections but know little about policing. If this professor discusses topics in policing in which he is not an expert, we may still assume he is right when he may be wrong. Authority figures may speak on fields they know little about. They can be completely wrong but we may believe them because of their status as an expert. Furthermore, an expert in one area may try to use his authority in an unrelated area. Other times, we have no idea of how the experts arrived at their knowledge. We just know they are experts in the topic area.

As I am writing this, I recall an example of authority knowledge that was wrong during my police academy training in the late 1980s. My academy training was about four years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner. 7 In this case, the Court limited the use of deadly force by police to defense of life situations and incidents where the suspect committed a violent offense. Prior to the decision, the police in several states could use deadly force on any fleeing suspect accused of a felony offense. One day, the academy class was practicing mock traffic stops. During one of my mock traffic stops, I received information that the vehicle I stopped was stolen. The driver and passenger exited the vehicle and fled on foot. I did not use deadly force (this was a training exercise so was not real) against the suspects and was chastised by my instructor who insisted that I should have shot the suspects as they were fleeing. Training instructors, just like professors, convey authority knowledge but, in this case, the instructor was wrong. I was not legally authorized to use deadly force in the traffic stop scenario despite the insistence of my instructor to the contrary.

Politicians are sometimes taken as a source of authority knowledge about the law, crime, and criminal justice issues. Since they enact laws that directly impact the operations of the criminal justice system, we may assume they are an authority on crime and criminal justice. More specifically, we may assume that politicians know best about how to reduce crime and increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. However, history is rife with laws that sounded good on paper but had no impact on crime. For example, there is little evidence that sex offender registration protects the public from sexual predators or acts as a deterrent to repeat sex offenders even though every state has a law requiring convicted sex offenders to register with local authorities. Perhaps politicians are not the criminal justice experts some perceive them to be.

History is also full of criminal justice authorities that we now see as being misinformed. For example, Cesare Lombroso is the father of the positivist school of criminology. He is most readily recognized for his idea that some individuals are born criminal. He stated that criminals have certain unique biological characteristics, including large protruding jaws, high foreheads, flattened noses, and asymmetrical faces, to name a few. 8 These characteristics were similar to those found in primitive humans. Therefore, Lombroso argued that some individuals were genetic “throwbacks” to a more primitive time and were less evolved than other people and thus, were more likely to be criminals. Lombroso’s research has been discredited because he failed to compare criminals with noncriminals. By studying only criminals, he found characteristics that were common to criminals. However, if Lombroso had studied a group of noncriminals, he would have discovered that these biological characteristics are just as prevalent among noncriminals. This example involves authority knowledge that is supported by research but the research methods used were flawed. The errors of Lombroso seem obvious now, but what do we know today through authority knowledge that is inaccurate or will be proven wrong in the future?

Knowledge from Tradition

In addition to authority knowledge, people often rely on tradition for knowledge. Tradition knowledge relies on the knowledge of the past. Individuals accept something as true because that is the way things have always been so it must be right. A good example of tradition knowledge is preventive/random patrol. Ever since vehicles were brought into the police patrol function, police administrators assumed that having patrol officers drive around randomly in the communities they serve, while they are not answering calls for service, would prevent crime. If you were a patrol officer in the early 1970s and asked your supervisor, “Why do I drive around randomly throughout my assigned area when I am not answering a call for service?” the answer would have been, “That is the way we have always done patrol and random patrol reduces crime through deterrence.” The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment challenged the tradition knowledge that preventive/random patrol reduces crime. The results of the study made it clear that the traditional practice of preventive/random patrol had little to no impact on reducing crime. This allowed police departments to develop other patrol deployment strategies such as directed patrol and “hot spots” policing since preventive patrol was seen as ineffective. The development of effective patrol deployment strategies continues today.

Knowledge from Common Sense

We frequently rely on common sense knowledge for what we know about crime and the criminal justice system because it “just makes sense.” For example, it “just makes sense” that if we send juvenile delinquents on a field trip to prison where they will see first hand the prison environment as well as be yelled at by actual prisoners, they will refrain from future delinquency. That is exactly what the program Scared Straight, originally developed in the 1970s, is designed to do. Scared Straight programs are still in existence today and are even the premise for the television show Beyond Scared Straight on the A&E television network. As originally created, the program was designed to decrease juvenile delinquency by bringing at-risk and delinquent juveniles into prison where they would be “scared straight” by inmates serving life sentences. Participants in the program were talked to and yelled at by the inmates in an effort to scare them. It was believed that the fear felt by the participants would lead to a discontinuation of their delinquent behavior so that they would not end up in prison themselves. This sounds like a good idea. It makes sense, and the program was initially touted as a success due to anecdotal evidence based on a few delinquents who turned their lives around after participation in the program.

However, evaluations of the program and others like it showed that the program was in fact unsuccessful. In the initial evaluation of the Scared Straight program, Finckenauer used a classic experimental design (discussed in Chapter 5), to evaluate the original “Lifer’s Program” at Rahway State Prison in New Jersey where the program was initially developed. 13 Juveniles were randomly assigned to an experimental group that attended the Scared Straight program and a control group that did not participate in the program. Results of the evaluation were not positive. Post-test measures revealed that juveniles who were assigned to the experimental group and participated in the program were actually more seriously delinquent afterwards than those who did not participate in the program. Also using an experimental design with random assignment, Yarborough evaluated the “Juvenile Offenders Learn Truth” (JOLT) program at the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson. 14 This program was similar to that of the “Lifer’s Program,” only with fewer obscenities used by inmates. Post-test measurements were taken at two intervals, three and six months after program completion. Again, results were not positive. Findings revealed no significant differences in delinquency between those juveniles who attended the program and those who did not. Other experiments conducted on Scared Straight- type programs further revealed their inability to deter juveniles from further delinquency. 15 Despite the common sense popularity of these programs, the evaluations showed that Scared Straight programs do not reduce delinquency and, in some instances, may actually increase delinquency. The programs may actually do more harm than good. I guess that begs the question, “Why do we still do these types of programs?”

Scared Straight programs and other widely held common sense beliefs about crime and the criminal justice system are questionable, based on the available research evidence. Common sense is important in our daily lives and is frequently correct, but, at times, it also contains inaccuracies, misinformation, and even prejudice.

CLASSICS IN CJ RESEARCH

Is It Safe to Put Felons on Probation?

Research Study 9

In the mid-1970s, the number of offenders on probation began to significantly increase. By the mid-1980s, probation was the most frequently used sentence in most states and its use was becoming more common for felons, whereas previously, probation was typically limited to misdemeanor crimes and offenses committed by juveniles. Increasing numbers of felony offenders were being placed on probation because judges had no other alternative forms of punishment. Prisons were already operating above capacity due to rising crime rates. Despite the increase in the use of probation in the 1980s, few empirical studies of probation (particularly its use with felony offenders) had been published. In the early 1980s, the Rand Corporation conducted an extensive study of probation to learn more about the offenders sentenced to probation and the effectiveness of probation as a criminal sanction. At the time the study began, over one-third of California’s probation population were convicted felons. 10 This was the first large-scale study of felony probation.

Is it safe to put felons on probation?

Data for the study were obtained from the California Board of Prison Terms (CBPT). The Board had been collecting comprehensive data on all offenders sentenced to prison since 1978 and on a sample of adult males from 17 counties who received probation. From these two data sources, researchers selected a sample of male offenders who had been convicted of the following crimes: robbery, assault, burglary, theft, forgery, and drug offenses. These crimes were selected because an offender could receive either prison or probation if convicted. Approximately 16,500 male felony offenders were included in the study. For each offender, researchers had access to their personal characteristics, information on their crimes, court proceedings, and disposition.

Two main research questions were answered in this study. First, what were the recidivism rates for felony offenders who received probation? When assessing recidivism rates, the study found that the majority of offenders sentenced to probation recidivated during the follow-up period, which averaged 31 months. Overall, 65% of the sample of probationers were re-arrested and 51 % were charged with and convicted of another offense. A total of 18% were convicted of a violent crime.

The second research question asked, what were the characteristics of the probationers who recidivated? Property offenders were more likely to recidivate compared to violent or drug offenders. Researchers also discovered that probationers tended to recidivate by committing the same crime that placed them on probation. Rand researchers included time to recidivism in their analysis and found that property and violent offenders recidivated sooner than drug offenders. The median time to the first filed charge was five months for property offenders and eight months for violent offenders.

The issue of whether or not the findings would generalize to other counties in California and to other states was raised. Data for the study came from probation and prison records from two counties in California. These two counties were not randomly selected, but were chosen because of their large probation populations and the willingness of departments to provide information. Further, the probation departments in these counties had experienced significant budget cuts. Supervision may have become compromised as a result and this could have explained why these counties had high rates of recidivism. Studies of probation recidivism in other states have found recidivism rates to be much lower, suggesting the Rand results may not have applied elsewhere. 11 Several studies examining the effectiveness of probation and the factors correlated with probation outcomes were published after 1985. Much of this research failed to produce results consistent with the Rand study.

The Rand study of felony probation received a considerable amount of attention within the field of corrections. According to one scholar, the study was acclaimed as “the most important criminological research to be reported since World War II.” 12 The National Institute of Justice disseminated the report to criminal justice agencies across the country and even highlighted the study in their monthly newsletter. Today, the study remains one of the most highly cited pieces of corrections research.

According to Rand researchers, these findings raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of probation for felony offenders. Most of the felons sentenced to probation recidivated and researchers were unable to develop an accurate prediction model to improve the courts’ decision-making. The continued use of probation as a sanction for felony offenders appeared to be putting the public at risk. However, without adequate prison space, the courts had no other alternatives besides probation when sentencing offenders.

The researchers made several recommendations to address the limitations of using probation for felony offenders. First, it was recommended that states formally acknowledge that the purpose of probation had changed. Probation was originally used as a means of furthering the goal of rehabilitation in the correctional system. As the United States moved away from that goal in the late 1960s, the expectations of probation changed. Probation was now used as a way to exercise “restrictive supervision” over more serious offenders. Second, probation departments needed to redefine the responsibilities of their probation officers. Probation officers were now expected to be surveillance officers instead of treatment personnel, which required specialized training. In addition, states needed to explore the possibility of broadening the legal authority of its probation officers by allowing them to act as law enforcement officers if necessary. Third, states were advised to adopt a formal client management system that included risk/need assessments of every client. Such a system would help establish uniform, consistent treatment of those on probation and would also help departments allocate their resources efficiently and effectively. Fourth, researchers encouraged states to develop alternative forms of community punishment that offered more public protection than regular probation, which led to the development and use of intensive supervision probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, day reporting centers, and other intermediate punishments.

Knowledge from Personal Experience

If you personally see something or if it actually happens to you, then you are likely to accept it as true and gain knowledge from the experience. Gaining knowledge through actual experiences is known as personal experience knowledge, and it has a powerful and lasting impact on everyone. Personal experiences are essential building blocks of knowledge and of what we believe to be true. The problem with knowledge gained from personal experiences is that personal experiences can be unique and unreliable, which can distort reality and lead us to believe things that are actually false.

How can events that someone personally experienced be wrong? The events are not wrong. Instead, the knowledge gained from the experience is wrong. For example, the research consistently shows that a person’s demeanor significantly impacts the decision-making of police officers. During a traffic stop, if a person is rude, disrespectful, and uncooperative to the officer, then the driver is more likely to receive a traffic citation than a warning. That is what the research on police discretion shows. However, if a person was rude and uncooperative to a police officer during a traffic stop and was let go without a citation, the person will gain knowledge from this personal experience. The knowledge gained may include that being disrespectful during future traffic stops will get this person out of future tickets. Not likely. The event is not wrong. Instead, the knowledge gained from the experience is wrong because being disrespectful to the police usually leads to more enforcement action taken by the police, not less.

As a student in criminal justice, you have probably experienced something similar in interaction with friends, relatives, and neighbors. Your knowledge of criminal justice that you have developed in your criminal justice classes is trumped by one experience your friend, relative, or neighbor had with the criminal justice system. They believe they are right because they experienced it. However, there are four errors that occur in the knowledge gained from personal experiences: overgeneralization, selective observation, illogical reasoning, and resistance to change.

Overgeneralization happens when people conclude that what they have observed in one or a few cases is true for all cases. For example, you may see that a wealthy businesswomen in your community is acquitted of bribery and may conclude that “wealthy people, especially women, are never convicted in our criminal justice system,” which is an overgeneralization. It is common to draw conclusions about people and society from our personal interactions, but, in reality, our experiences are limited because we interact with just a small percentage of people in society.

The same is true for practitioners in the criminal justice system. Practitioners have a tendency to believe that because something was done a particular way in their agency, it is done that way in all agencies. That may not be true. Although there are certainly operational similarities across criminal justice agencies, there are also nuances that exist across the over 50,000 criminal justice agencies in the United States. Believing that just because it was that way in your agency, it must be that way in all agencies leads to overgeneralization.

Selective observation is choosing, either consciously or unconsciously, to pay attention to and remember events that support our personal preferences and beliefs. In fact, with selective observation, we will seek out evidence that confirms what we believe to be true and ignore the events that provide contradictory evidence. We are more likely to notice pieces of evidence that reinforce and support our ideology. As applied to the criminal justice system, when we are inclined to be critical of the criminal justice system, it is pretty easy to notice its every failing and ignore its successes. For example, if someone believes the police commonly use excessive force, the person is more likely to pay attention to and remember a police brutality allegation on the nightly news than a police pursuit that led to the apprehension of the suspect without incident on the same nightly news. As another example, if you believe treatment efforts on sex offenders are futile, you will pay attention to and remember each sex offender you hear about that recidivates but will pay little attention to any successes. It is easy to find instances that confirm our beliefs, but with selective observation, the complete picture is not being viewed. Therefore, if we only acknowledge the events that confirm our beliefs and ignore those that challenge them, we are falling victim to selective observation.

Besides selective observation, some of our observations may simply be wrong. Consider eyewitness identification. It is a common practice in the criminal justice system, but research has consistently demonstrated inaccuracies in eyewitness identification. The witness feels certain that the person viewed is the person who committed the offense, but sometimes the witness is wrong. Even when our senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell are fully operational, our minds have to interpret what we have sensed, which may lead to an inaccurate observation.

RESEARCH IN THE NEWS

When Your Criminal Past Isn’t Yours 16

The business of background checks on prospective employees is increasing significantly. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, since the events of September 11, 2001, the percentage of companies that conduct criminal history checks during the hiring process has risen past 90%. Employers spend at least $2 billion a year to look into the pasts of their prospective employees. Problems with the business of background checks were identified through research that included a review of thousands of pages of court filings and interviews with dozens of court officials, data providers, lawyers, victims, and regulators.

The business of background checks is a system weakened by the conversion to digital files and compromised by the significant number of private companies that profit by amassing public records and selling them to employers. The private companies create a system in which a computer program scrapes the public files of court systems around the country to retrieve personal data. Basically, these are automated data-mining programs. Today, half the courts in the United States put criminal records on their public websites. So, the data are there for the taking, but the records that are retrieved typically are not checked for errors—errors that would be obvious to human eyes.

The errors can start with a mistake entered into the logs of a law enforcement agency or a court file. The biggest culprits, though, are companies that compile databases using public information. In some instances, their automated formulas misinterpret the information provided them. Other times, records wind up assigned to the wrong people with a common name. Furthermore, when a government agency erases a criminal conviction after a designated period of good behavior, many of the commercial databases don’t perform the updates required to purge offenses that have been removed from public record. It is clear that these errors can have substantial ramifications, including damaged reputations and loss of job opportunities.

Illogical reasoning occurs when someone jumps to premature conclusions or presents an argument that is based on invalid assumptions. Premature conclusions occur when we feel we have the answer based on a few pieces of evidence and do not need to seek additional information that may invalidate our conclusion. Think of a detective who, after examining only a few pieces of evidence, quickly narrows in on a murder suspect. It is common for a detective to assess the initial evidence and make an initial determination of who committed the murder. However, it is hoped that the detective will continue to sort through all the evidence for confirmation or rejection of his original conclusion regarding the murder suspect. Illogical reasoning by jumping to premature conclusions is common in everyday life. We look for evidence to confirm or reject our beliefs and stop when a small amount of evidence is present; we jump to conclusions. If a person states, “I know four people who have dropped out of high school, and each one of them ended up addicted to drugs, so all dropouts abuse drugs,” the person is jumping to conclusions.

Illogical reasoning also occurs when an argument, based on invalid assumptions, is presented. Let’s revisit the Scared Straight example previously discussed. Program developers assumed that brief exposure to the harsh realities of prison would deter juveniles from future delinquency. The Scared Straight program is an example of illogical reasoning. Four hours of exposure to prison life is not going to counteract years of delinquency and turn a delinquent into a nondelinquent. The program is based on a false assumption and fails to recognize the substantial risk factors present in the lives of most delinquents that must be mediated before the juvenile can live a crime-free lifestyle. A fear of prison, developed through brief exposure, is not enough to counteract the risk factors present in the lives of most delinquents. Although the Scared Straight program sounds good, it is illogical to assume that a brief experience with prison life will have a stronger impact on the decisions made by delinquents than peer support for delinquency, drug abuse, lack of education, poor parental supervision, and other factors that influence delinquency.

Resistance to change is the reluctance to change our beliefs in light of new, accurate, and valid information to the contrary. Resistance to change is common and it occurs for several reasons. First, even though our personal experience may be counter to our belief system, it is hard to admit we were wrong after we have taken a position on an issue. Even when the research evidence shows otherwise, people who work within programs may still believe they are effective. As previously stated, even though the research evidence shows otherwise, Scared Straight programs still exist and there is even a television show devoted to the program. Second, too much devotion to tradition and the argument that this is the way it has always been done inhibits change and hinders our ability to accept new directions and develop new knowledge. Third, uncritical agreement with authority inhibits change. Although authority knowledge is certainly an important means of gaining knowledge, we must critically evaluate the ideas, beliefs, and statements of those in positions of authority and be willing to challenge those statements where necessary. However, people often accept the beliefs of those in positions of authority without question, which hinders change.

Knowledge from Media Portrayals

Television shows, movies, websites, newspapers, and magazine articles are important sources of information. This is especially true for information about crime and the criminal justice system since most people have not had much contact with criminals or the criminal justice system. Instead of gaining knowledge about the criminal justice system through personal experience, most people learn about crime and the operations of the criminal justice system through media outlets. Since the primary goal of many of these media outlets is to entertain, they may not accurately reflect the reality of crime and criminal justice. Despite their inaccuracies, the media has a substantial impact on what people know about crime and the criminal justice system. Most people know what they know about crime and criminal justice through the media, and this knowledge even has an impact on criminal justice system operations.

An example of the potential impact of the media on the actual operations of the criminal justice system involves the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation television shows. The shows have been criticized for their unrealistic portrayal of the role of forensic science in solving criminal cases. Critics claim that CSI viewers accept what they see on the show as an accurate representation of how forensic science works. When summoned for jury duty, they bring with them unrealistic expectations of the forensic evidence they will see in trial. When the expected sophisticated forensic evidence is not presented in the real trial, the juror is more likely to vote to acquit the defendant. This phenomenon is known as the CSI Effect. Has the research shown that the CSI Effect exists and is impacting the criminal justice system? Most of the research shows that the CSI Effect does not exist and thus does not impact juror decision-making, but other research has shown that viewers of CSI have higher expectations related to evidence presented at trial. 17

There are several instances in which media attention on a particular topic created the idea that a major problem existed when it did not. An example is Halloween sadism. Halloween sadism is the practice of giving contaminated treats to children during trick or treating. 18 In 1985, Joel Best wrote an article entitled, “The Myth of the Halloween Sadist.” 19 His article reviewed press coverage of Halloween sadism in the leading papers in the three largest metropolitan areas ( New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune ) from 1958–1984. Although the belief in Halloween sadism is widespread, Best found few reported incidents and few reports of children being injured by Halloween sadism. Follow-ups on these reported incidents led to the conclusion that most of these reports were hoaxes. Best concluded, “I have been unable to find a substantiated report of a child being killed or seriously injured by a contaminated treat picked up in the course of trick or treating.” 20 Since 1985, Best has kept his research up to date and has come to the same conclusion. Halloween sadism is an urban legend; it is a story that is told as true, even though there is little or no evidence that the events in the story ever occurred.

Dispelling Myths: The Power of Research Methods

In the prior section, sources of knowledge were discussed along with the limitations of each. A researcher (e.g., criminologist), ideally, takes no knowledge claim for granted, but instead relies on research methods to discover the truth. In the attempt to generate new knowledge, a researcher is skeptical of knowledge that is generated by the sources discussed in the prior section, and this skepticism leads to the questioning of conventional thinking. Through this process, existing knowledge claims are discredited, modified, or substantiated. Research methods provide the researcher with the tools necessary to test current knowledge and discover new knowledge.

Although knowledge developed through research methods is by no means perfect and infallible, it is definitely a more systematic, structured, precise, and evidence-based process than the knowledge sources previously discussed. However, researchers should not dismiss all knowledge from the prior sources discussed, because, as mentioned, these sources of knowledge are sometimes accurate and certainly have their place in the development of knowledge. Researchers should guard against an elitist mind-set in which all knowledge, unless it is research-based knowledge, is dismissed.

To further discuss the importance of research methods in the development of knowledge, this section will discuss myths about crime and criminal justice. Myths are beliefs that are based on emotion rather than rigorous analysis. Take the myth of the Halloween sadist previously discussed. Many believe that there are real examples of children being harmed by razor blades, poison, or other nefarious objects placed in Halloween candy. This belief has changed the practices of many parents on Halloween; not allowing their children to trick-or-treat in their neighborhood and forbidding them from going to the doors of strangers. After careful analysis by Best, there is not a single, known example of children being seriously injured or killed by contaminated candy given by strangers. The Halloween sadist is a myth but it is still perpetuated today, and as the definition states, it is a belief based upon emotion rather than rigorous analysis. People accept myths as accurate knowledge of reality when, in fact, the knowledge is false.

The power of research is the ability to dispel myths. If someone were to assess the research literature on a myth or do their own research, she would find that the knowledge based on the myth is wrong. Perceived reality is contradicted by the facts developed through research. But that does not mean that the myth still doesn’t exist. It is important to keep in mind that the perpetuation and acceptance of myths by the public, politicians, and criminal justice personnel has contributed to the failure of criminal justice practices and policies designed to reduce crime and improve the operations of the criminal justice system. In this section, a detailed example of a myth about crime, police, courts, and corrections will be presented to demonstrate how the myth has been dispelled through research. In addition, several additional myths about crime, police, courts, and corrections will be briefly presented.

The Health Benefits of Alcohol Consumption 21

The press release from Oregon State University is titled “Beer Compound Shows Potent Promise in Prostate Cancer Battle.” The press release leads to several newspaper articles throughout the country written on the preventative nature of drinking beer on prostate cancer development with titles such as “Beer Protects Your Prostate” and “Beer May Help Men Ward Off Prostate Cancer.” By the titles alone, this sounds great; one of the main ingredients in beer appears to thwart prostate cancer.

The study that generated these headlines was conducted by a group of researchers at Oregon State University using cultured cells with purified compounds in a laboratory setting. The research showed that xanthohumol, a compound found in hops, slowed the growth of prostate cancer cells and also the growth of cells that cause enlarged prostates. But you would have to drink more than 17 pints of beer to consume a medically effective dose of xanthohumol, which is almost a case of beer. In addition, although the research is promising, further study is necessary to determine xanthohumol’s true impact on prostate cancer.

These are the types of headlines that people pay attention to and want to believe as true, even if disproven by later research. People want to believe that there are health benefits to alcohol consumption. You have probably heard about the health benefits of drinking red wine, but here is something you should consider. Recently, the University of Connecticut released a statement describing an extensive research misconduct investigation involving a member of its faculty. The investigation was sparked by an anonymous allegation of research irregularities. The comprehensive report of the investigation, which totals approximately 60,000 pages, concludes that the professor is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data. The professor had gained international notoriety for his research into the beneficial properties of resveratrol, which is found in red wine, especially its impact on aging. Obviously, this throws his research conclusions, that red wine has a beneficial impact on the aging process, into question.

Myths about Crime—Drug Users Are Violent

The myth of drug users as violent offenders continues to be perpetuated by media accounts of violent drug users. The public sees drug users as violent offenders who commit violent crimes to get money for drugs or who commit violent crimes while under the intoxicating properties of drugs. The public also recognizes the violent nature of the drug business with gangs and cartels using violence to protect their turf. In May 2012, extensive media attention was given to the case of the Miami man who ate the face of a homeless man for an agonizing 18 minutes until police shot and killed the suspect. The police believed that the suspect was high on the street drug known as “bath salts.” This horrific case definitely leaves the image in the public’s mind about the relationship between violence and drug use.

In recent years, media reports have focused on the relationship between methamphetamine use and violence; before then it was crack cocaine use and violence. 32 However, media portrayals regarding the violent tendencies of drug users date back to the 1930s and the release of Reefer Madness. In 1985, Goldstein suggested that drugs and violence could be related in three different ways:

1. violence could be the direct result of drug ingestion;

2. violence could be a product of the instability of drug market activity; and

3. violence could be the consequence of people having a compulsive need for drugs or money for drugs. 33

So, what does the research show? Studies have found that homicides related to crack cocaine were usually the product of the instability of drug market activity (i.e., buying and selling drugs can be a violent activity) and rarely the result of drug ingestion. 34 After an extensive review of research studies on alcohol, drugs, and violence, Parker and Auerhahn concluded, “Despite a number of published statements to the contrary, we find no significant evidence suggesting that drug use is associated with violence. There is substantial evidence to suggest that alcohol use is significantly associated with violence of all kinds.” 35 The reality is not everyone who uses drugs becomes violent and users who do become violent do not do so every time they use drugs; therefore, the relationship between violence and drug use is a myth.

MYTHS ABOUT CRIME

Some additional myths about crime that research does not support include:

•Crime statistics accurately show what crimes are being committed and what crimes are most harmful. 22

•Most criminals—especially the dangerous ones—are mentally ill. 23

•White-collar crime is only about financial loss and does not hurt anyone. 24

•Serial murderers are middle-aged, white males. 25

•Criminals are significantly different from noncriminals. 26

•People are more likely to be a victim of violent crime committed by a stranger than by someone they know. 27

•Older adults are more likely to be victimized than people in any other age group. 28

•Sex offender registration protects the public from sexual predators. 29

•Juvenile crime rates are significantly increasing. 30

•Only the most violent juveniles are tried as adults. 31

Myths about Police—Female Police Officers Do Not Perform as Well as Males

Female police officers still face the myth that they cannot perform as well as male police officers. Throughout history, females have faced significant difficulties even becoming police officers. In the past, it was common for police agencies to require all police applicants to meet a minimum height requirement to be considered for employment. The minimum height requirement was 5′8″ for most agencies, which limited the ability of females to successfully meet the minimum standards to become a police officer. Even if women could meet the minimum height requirements, they were typically faced with a physical-abilities test that emphasized upper body strength (e.g., push-ups and bench presses). Women failed these tests more often than men, and thus were not eligible to be police officers. Minimum height requirements are no longer used in law enforcement, but the perception that female police officers are not as good as males still exists. Today, the myth that women cannot be effective police officers is based largely on the belief that the need to demonstrate superior physical strength is a daily, common occurrence in law enforcement along with the belief that police work is routinely dangerous, violent, and crime-related.

So, what does the research show? On occasion, it is useful for police officers to be able to overpower suspects by demonstrating superior physical strength, but those types of activities are rare in law enforcement. In addition, it is fairly rare for a police officer to have to deal with a dangerous and violent encounter or even an incident involving a crime. The Police Services Study conducted in the 1970s analyzed 26,418 calls for service in three metropolitan areas and found that only 19% of calls for service involve crime and only 2% of the total calls for service involve violent crime. 43 This research study was among the first to assess the types of calls for service received by police agencies.

Despite the belief that women do not make good police officers, consistent research findings show that women are extremely capable as police officers, and in some respects, outperform their male counterparts. 44 Research has demonstrated several advantages to the hiring, retention, and promotion of women in law enforcement. First, female officers are as competent as their male counterparts. Research does not show any consistent differences in how male and female patrol officers perform their duties. Second, female officers are less likely to use excessive force. Research has shown that female patrol officers are less likely to be involved in high-speed pursuits, incidents of deadly force, and the use of excessive force. Female officers are more capable at calming potentially violent situations through communication and also demonstrate heightened levels of caution. Third, female officers can help implement community-oriented policing. Studies have shown that female officers are more supportive of the community-policing philosophy than are their male counterparts. Fourth, female officers can improve law enforcement’s response to violence against women. Studies have shown that female officers are more patient and understanding in handling domestic violence calls, and female victims of domestic violence are more likely to provide positive evaluations of female officers than their male counterparts. 52

MYTHS ABOUT POLICE

Some additional myths about the police that research does not support include:

•Police target minorities for traffic stops and arrests. 36

•Most crimes are solved through forensic science. 37

•COMPSTAT reduces crime. 38

•Intensive law enforcement efforts at the street level will lead to the control of illicit drug use and abuse. 39

•Police work primarily entails responding to crimes in progress or crimes that have just occurred. 40

•Police presence reduces crime. 41

•Detectives are most responsible for solving crimes and arresting offenders. 42

Myths about Courts—The Death Penalty Is Administered Fairly

According to a recent Gallup poll, 52% of Americans say the death penalty is applied fairly in the United States, the lowest mark in almost 40 years. 53 The issue of fairness and the death penalty typically concerns whether the punishment is equally imposed on offenders who are equally deserving based on legal factors (i.e., similar offense, similar prior criminal history, similar aggravating circumstances, and similar mitigating circumstances). 54 Unfairness can be shown if similarly situated offenders are more or less likely to receive death sentences based on age, gender, and race.

So, what does the research show? First, has research shown that a defendant’s age influences his or her chances of being sentenced to death? A study of about 5,000 homicides, controlling for legally relevant variables, found that defendants over the age of 25 were more than twice as likely to receive the death penalty in comparison to those 25 years of age or younger. 55

Second, has research shown that a defendant’s gender influences his or her chance of being sentenced to death? Capital punishment is almost exclusively reserved for male defendants. On December 31, 2010, there were 3,158 prisoners under a sentence of death in the United States: 58 were women, or 1.8%. 56 However, women account for 10–12% of all murders in the United States. 57 One research study found that male defendants were 2.6 times more likely than females to receive a death sentence after controlling for legally relevant factors. 58

Third, has research shown that a defendant’s race influences his or her chance of being sentenced to death? Most of the research on the biased nature of the death penalty has focused on racial inequities in the sentence. Although some research has shown that a defendant’s race has an impact on the likelihood of receiving a death sentence, a significant amount of research has shown that the race of the victim has the most substantial impact on death sentences. The research evidence clearly shows that offenders who murder white victims are more likely to receive a death sentence than offenders who murder black victims. 59 When assessing the race of both the victim and offender, the composition most likely to receive the death penalty is when a black offender murders a white victim. 60

MYTHS ABOUT COURTS

Some additional myths about courts that research does not support include:

•Many criminals escape justice because of the exclusionary rule. 45

•Subjecting juvenile offenders to harsh punishments can reduce crime committed by juveniles. 46

•Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of imprisonment and harsh punishment for offenders. 47

•The death penalty brings closure and a sense of justice to the family and friends of murder victims. 48

•Insanity is a common verdict in criminal courts in the United States. 49

•Eyewitness identification is reliable evidence. 50

•Most people who commit crimes based on hatred, bias, or discrimination face hate crime charges and longer sentencing. 51

Myths about Corrections—Imprisonment Is the Most Severe Form of Punishment

It seems clear that besides the death penalty, the most severe punishment available in our criminal justice system is to lock up offenders in prison. On a continuum, it is perceived that sentence severity increases as one moves from fines, to probation, to intermediate sanctions such as boot camps, and finally, to incarceration in prison. The public and politicians support this perception as well.

So, what does the research show? What do criminals think is the most severe form of punishment? A growing body of research has assessed how convicted offenders perceive and experience the severity of sentences in our criminal justice system. 61 Research suggests that alternatives to incarceration in prison (i.e., probation and intermediate sanctions) are perceived by many offenders as more severe due to a greater risk of program failure (e.g., probation revocation). In comparison, serving prison time is easier. 62  

For example, one study found that about one-third of nonviolent offenders given the option of participating in an Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) program, chose prison instead because the prospects of working every day and submitting to random drug tests was more punitive than serving time in prison. 73 Prisoners also stated that they would likely be caught violating probation conditions (i.e., high risk of program failure) and be sent to prison anyway. 74 In another research study involving survey responses from 415 inmates serving a brief prison sentence for a nonviolent crime, prison was considered the eighth most severe sanction, with only community service and probation seen as less punitive. Electronic monitoring (seventh), intensive supervision probation (sixth), halfway house (fifth), intermittent incarceration (fourth), day reporting (third), county jail (second), and boot camp (first) were all rated by inmates as more severe sanctions than prison. 75

MYTHS ABOUT CORRECTIONS

Some additional myths about corrections that research does not support include:

•Punishing criminals reduces crime. 63

•Prisons are too lenient in their day-to-day operations (prisons as country clubs). 64

•Prisons can be self-supporting if only prisoners were forced to work. 65

•Private prisons are more cost effective than state-run prisons. 66

•Focus of community corrections is rehabilitation rather than punishment. 67

•Correctional rehabilitation does not work. 68

•Drug offenders are treated leniently by the criminal justice system. 69

•Most death row inmates will be executed eventually. 70

•If correctional sanctions are severe enough, people will think twice about committing crimes. 71

•Sexual violence against and exploitation of inmates of the same gender are primarily the result of lack of heterosexual opportunities. 72

What is Research and Why is It Important to be an Informed Consumer of Research?

We probably should have started the chapter with the question “What is research?” but we wanted to initially lay a foundation for the question with a discussion of the problems with how knowledge is developed and the power of research in discovering the truth. Research methods are tools that allow criminology and criminal justice researchers to systematically study crime and the criminal justice system. The study of research methods is the study of the basic rules, appropriate techniques, and relevant procedures for conducting research. Research methods provide the tools necessary to approach issues in criminal justice from a rigorous standpoint and challenge opinions based solely on nonscientific observations and experiences. Similarly, research is the scientific investigation of an issue, problem, or subject utilizing research methods. Research is a means of knowledge development that is designed to assist in discovering answers to research questions and leads to the creation of new questions.

How Is Knowledge Development through Research Different?

Previously, sources of knowledge development were discussed, including authority, tradition, common sense, personal experience, and media portrayals. The problems generated by each knowledge source were also discussed. Research is another source of knowledge development, but it is different than those previously discussed in several ways. First, research relies on logical and systematic methods and observations to answer questions. Researchers use systematic, well-established research practices to seek answers to their questions. The methods and observations are completed in such a way that others can inspect and assess the methods and observations and offer feedback and criticism. Researchers develop, refine, and report their understanding of crime and the criminal justice system more systematically than the public does through casual observation. Those who conduct scientific research employ much more rigorous methods to gather the information/knowledge they are seeking.

Second, in order to prove that a research finding is correct, a researcher must be able to replicate the finding using the same methods. Only through replication can we have confidence in our original finding. For researchers, it may be important to replicate findings many times over so that we are assured our original finding was not a coincidence or chance occurrence. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment is an example of this and will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. In the experiment, the researchers found that arrests for domestic violence lead to fewer repeat incidences in comparison to separation of the people involved and mediation. Five replication studies were conducted and none were able to replicate the findings in the Minneapolis study. In fact, three of the replications found that those arrested for domestic violence had higher levels of continued domestic violence, so arrest did not have the deterrent effect found in the Minneapolis study.

Third, research is objective. Objectivity indicates a neutral and nonbiased perspective when conducting research. Although there are examples to the contrary, the researcher should not have a vested interest in what findings are discovered from the research. The researcher is expected to remain objective and report the findings of the study regardless of whether the findings support their personal opinion or agenda. In addition, research ensures objectivity by allowing others to examine and be critical of the methodology, findings, and results of research studies.

It should be clear that using research methods to answer questions about crime and the criminal justice system will greatly reduce the errors in the development of knowledge previously discussed. For example, research methods reduces the likelihood of overgeneralization by using systematic procedures for selecting individuals or groups to study that are representative of the individuals or groups that we wish to generalize. This is the topic of Chapter 3, which covers sampling procedures. In addition, research methods reduces the risk of selective observation by requiring that we measure and observe our research subjects systematically.

Being an Informed Consumer of Research

Criminal justice and criminological research is important for several reasons. First, it can provide better and more objective information. Second, it can promote better decision-making. Today, more than ever, we live in a world driven by data and in which there is an increasing dependence on the assessment of data when making decisions. As well as possible, research ensures that our decisions are based on data and not on an arbitrary or personal basis. Third, it allows for the objective assessment of programs. Fourth, it has often been the source of innovation within criminal justice agencies. Fifth, it can be directly relevant to criminal justice practice and have a significant impact on criminal justice operations.

Before we apply research results to practices in the criminal justice system, and before we even accept those research results as reasonable, we need to be able to know whether or not they are worthwhile. In other words, should we believe the results of the study? Research has its own limitations, so we need to evaluate research results and the methods used to produce them, and we do so through critical evaluation. Critical evaluation involves identifying both positive and negative aspects of the research study—both the good and the bad. Critical evaluation involves comparing the methodology used in the research with the standards established in research methods.

Through critical evaluation, consumers of research break studies down into their essential elements. What are the research questions and hypotheses? What were the independent and dependent variables? What research design was used? Was probability sampling used? What data-gathering procedures were employed? What type of data analysis was conducted and what conclusions were made? These are some of the questions that are asked by informed consumers of research. The evaluation of research ranges from the manner in which one obtains an idea to the ways in which one writes about the research results, and understanding each step in the research process is useful in our attempts to consume research conducted by others. Located between these two activities are issues concerning ethics, sampling, research design, data analyses, and interpretations.

The research design and procedures are typically the most critically evaluated aspects of research and will likewise receive the greatest amount of attention in this text. Informed consumers of research don’t just take the results of a research study at face value because the study is in an academic journal or written by someone with a Ph.D. Instead, informed consumers critically evaluate research. Taking what is learned throughout this text, critical evaluation of research is covered in Chapter 8, and upon completing this text, it is hoped that you will be an informed consumer of research and will put your research knowledge to use throughout your career.

Although many students will never undertake their own research, all will be governed by policies based upon research and exposed to research findings in their chosen professional positions. Most government agencies, including the criminal justice system, as well as private industry, routinely rely on data analysis. Criminal justice students employed with these agencies will be challenged if not prepared for quantitative tasks. Unfortunately, it is not unusual to find students as well as professionals in criminal justice who are unable to fully understand research reports and journal articles in their own field.

Beyond our criminal justice careers, we are all exposed to and use research to help us understand issues and to make personal decisions. For example, we know that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and has other significant health impacts, so we don’t smoke. Your doctor tells you that your cholesterol is too high and you need to limit your red meat intake because research shows that consumption of red meat raises cholesterol; so, you quit eating red meat. That is why not all the examples in this text are criminal justice research examples. Some come from the medical field while others come from psychology and other disciplines. This is to remind you that you are probably exposed to much more research than you thought on day one of this class.

Overall, knowledge of research methods will allow you to more appropriately consider and consume information that is important to your career in criminal justice. It will help you better understand the process of asking and answering a question systematically and be a better consumer of the kind of information that you really need to be the best criminal justice professional you can. Once familiar with research methods, your anxiety about reviewing technical reports and research findings can be minimized. As discussed in the next section, research methods involve a process and once you understand the process, you can apply your knowledge to any research study, even those in other disciplines.

The Research Process

One of the nice things about studying research methods is it is about learning a process. Research methods can be seen as a sequential process with the first step being followed by the second step, and so on. There are certainly times when the order of the steps may be modified, but researchers typically follow the same process for each research study they complete regardless of the research topic (as depicted in Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2). Very simply, a research problem or question is identified, and a methodology is selected, developed, and implemented to answer the research question. This sequential process is one of the advantages of understanding research methods, because once you understand the process, you can apply that process to any research question that interests you. In addition, research methods are the same across disciplines. So, sampling is the same in business as it is in health education and as it is in criminal justice. Certainly the use of a particular method will be more common in one discipline in comparison to another, but the protocol for implementing the method to complete the research study is the same. For example, field research (discussed in Chapter 6) is used much more frequently in anthropology than in criminal justice. However, the research protocol to implement field research is the same whether you are studying an indigenous Indian tribe in South America in anthropology or a group of heroin users in St. Louis in criminal justice.

Some authors have presented the research process as a wheel or circle, with no specific beginning or end. Typically, the research process begins with the selection of a research problem and the development of research questions or hypotheses (discussed further in Chapter 2). It is common for the results of previous research to generate new research questions and hypotheses for the researcher. This suggests that research is cyclical, a vibrant and continuous process. When a research study answers one question, the result is often the generation of additional questions, which plunges the researcher right back into the research process to complete additional research to answer these new questions.

In this section, a brief overview of the research process will be presented. The chapters that follow address various aspects of the research process, but it is critical that you keep in mind the overall research process as you read this book, which is why is it presented here. Although you will probably not be expected to conduct a research study on your own, it is important for an educated consumer of research to understand the steps in the research process. The steps are presented in chronological order and appear neatly ordered. In practice, the researcher can go back and forth between the steps in the research process.

Step 1: Select a Topic and Conduct a Literature Review

The first step in the research process is typically the identification of a problem or topic that the researcher is interested in studying. Research topics can arise from a wide variety of sources, including the findings of a current study, a question that a criminal justice agency needs to have answered, or the result of intellectual curiosity. Once the researcher has identified a particular problem or topic, the researcher assesses the current state of the literature related to the problem or topic. The researcher will often spend a considerable amount of time in determining what the existing literature has to say about the topic. Has the topic already been studied to the point that the questions in which the researcher is interested have been sufficiently answered? If so, can the researcher approach the subject from a previously unexamined perspective? Many times, research topics have been previously explored but not brought to completion. If this is the case, it is certainly reasonable to examine the topic again. It is even appropriate to replicate a previous study to determine whether the findings reported in the prior research continue to be true in different settings with different participants. This step in the research process is also discussed in Chapter 2.

Step 2: Develop a Research Question

After a topic has been identified and a comprehensive literature review has been completed on the topic, the next step is the development of a research question or questions. The research question marks the beginning of your research study and is critical to the remaining steps in the research process. The research question determines the research plan and methodology that will be employed in the study, the data that will be collected, and the data analysis that will be performed. Basically, the remaining steps in the process are completed in order to answer the research question or questions established in this step. The development of research questions is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Step 3: Develop a Hypothesis

After the research questions have been established, the next step is the formulation of hypotheses, which are statements about the expected relationship between two variables. For example, a hypothesis may state that there is no relationship between heavy metal music preference and violent delinquency. The two variables stated in the hypothesis are music preference and violent delinquency. Hypothesis development is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Step 4: Operationalize Concepts

Operationalization involves the process of giving the concepts in your study a working definition and determining how each concept in your study will be measured. For example, in Step 3, the variables were music preference and violent delinquency. The process of operationalization involves determining how music preference and violent delinquency will be measured. Operationalization is further discussed in Chapter 2.

Step 5: Develop the Research Plan and Methodology

The next step is to develop the methodology that will be employed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. The research methodology is the blueprint for the study, which outlines how the research is to be conducted. The research questions will determine the appropriate methodology for the study. The research design selected should be driven by the research questions asked. In other words, the research questions dictate the methods used to answer them. The methodology is basically a research plan on how the research questions will be answered and will detail:

1. What group, subjects, or population will be studied and selected? Sampling will be discussed in Chapter 3.

2 . What research design will be used to collect data to answer the research questions? Various research designs will be covered in Chapters 4–7.

You need to have familiarity with all research designs so that you can become an educated consumer of research. A survey cannot answer all research questions, so knowing a lot about surveys but not other research designs will not serve you well as you assess research studies. There are several common designs used in criminal justice and criminology research. Brief descriptions of several common research designs are presented below, but each is discussed in detail in later chapters.

Survey research is one of the most common research designs employed in criminal justice research. It obtains data directly from research participants by asking them questions and is often conducted through self-administered questionnaires and personal interviews. For example, a professor might have her students complete a survey during class to understand the relationship between drug use and self-esteem. Survey research is discussed in Chapter 4.

Experimental designs are used when researchers are interested in determining whether a program, policy, practice, or intervention is effective. For example, a researcher may use an experimental design to determine if boot camps are effective at reducing juvenile delinquency. Experimental design is discussed in Chapter 5.

Field research involves researchers studying individuals or groups of individuals in their natural environment. The researcher is observing closely or acting as part of the group under study and is able to describe in depth not only the subject’s behaviors, but also consider the motivations that drive those behaviors. For example, if a researcher wanted to learn more about gangs and their activities, he may “hang out” with a gang in order to observe their behavior. Field research is discussed in Chapter 6.

A case study is an in-depth analysis of one or a few illustrative cases. This design allows the story behind an individual, a particular offender, to be told and then information from cases studies can be extrapolated to a larger group. Often these studies require the review and analysis of documents such as police reports and court records and interviews with the offender and others. For example, a researcher may explore the life history of a serial killer to try and understand why the offender killed. Case studies are discussed in Chapter 6.

Secondary data analysis occurs when researchers obtain and reanalyze data that was originally collected for a different purpose. This can include reanalyzing data collected from a prior research study, using criminal justice agency records to answer a research question, or historical research. For example, a researcher using secondary data analysis may analyze inmate files from a nearby prison to understand the relationship between custody level assignment and disciplinary violations inside prison. Secondary data analysis is discussed in Chapter 7.

Content analysis requires the assessment of content contained in mass communication outlets such as newspapers, television, magazines, and the like. In this research design, documents, publications, or presentations are reviewed and analyzed. For example, a researcher utilizing content analysis might review true crime books involving murder to see how the characteristics of the offender and victim in the true crime books match reality as depicted in the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports. Content analysis is discussed in Chapter 7.

Despite the options these designs offer, other research designs are available and will be discussed later in the text. Ultimately, the design used will depend on the nature of the study and the research questions asked.

Step 6: Execute the Research Plan and Collect Data

The next step in the research process is the collection of the data based on the research design developed. For example, if a survey is developed to study the relationship between gang membership and violent delinquency, the distribution and collection of surveys from a group of high school students would occur in this step. Data collection is discussed in several chapters throughout this text.

Step 7: Analyze Data

After the data have been collected, the next phase in the research process involves analyzing the data through various and appropriate statistical techniques. The most common means for data analysis today is through the use of a computer and statistically oriented software. Data analysis and statistics are discussed in Chapter 9.

Step 8: Report Findings, Results, and Limitations

Reporting and interpreting the results of the study make up the final step in the research process. The findings and results of the study can be communicated through reports, journals, books, or computer presentations. At this step, the results are reported and the research questions are answered. In addition, an assessment is made regarding the support or lack of support for the hypotheses tested. It is also at this stage that the researcher can pose additional research questions that may now need to be answered as a result of the research study. In addition, the limitations of the study, as well as the impact those limitations may have on the results of the study, will be described by the researcher. All research has limitations, so it is incumbent on the researcher to identify those limitations for the reader. The process of assessing the quality of research will be discussed in Chapter 8.

Research in Action: Impacting Criminal Justice Operations

Research in the criminal justice system has had significant impacts on its operations. The following sections provide an example of research that has significantly impacted each of the three main components of the criminal justice system: police, courts, and corrections. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that research has aided the positive development and progression of the criminal justice system.

Police Research Example 76

The efforts of criminal justice researchers in policing have been important and have created the initial and critical foundation necessary for the further development of effective and productive law enforcement. One seminal study asked: How important is it for the police to respond quickly when a citizen calls? The importance of rapid response was conveyed in a 1973 National Commission on Productivity Report despite the fact that there was very little empirical evidence upon which to base this assumption. In fact, the Commission stated “there is no definitive relationship between response time and deterrence, but professional judgment and logic do suggest that the two are related in a strong enough manner to make more rapid response important.” 77 Basically the Commission members were stating that we don’t have any research evidence that response times are important, but we “know” that they are. Police departments allocated substantial resources to the patrol function and deployed officers in an effort to improve response time through the use of the 9-1-1 telephone number, computer-assisted dispatch, and beat assignment systems. Officers were typically assigned to a patrol beat. When the officers were not answering calls for service, they remained in their assigned beats so they could immediately respond to an emergency.

The data for the project were collected as part of a larger experiment on preventive patrol carried out in Kansas City, Missouri, between October 1972 and September 1973. 78 To determine the impact of response time, researchers speculated that the following variables would be influenced by response time: 1) the outcome of the response, 2) citizen satisfaction with response time, and 3) citizen satisfaction with the responding officer. Several data sources were used in the study. First, surveys were completed after all citizen-initiated calls (excluding automobile accidents) that involved contact with a police officer. The survey instrument consisted of questions to assess the length of time to respond to a call and the outcome of the call (i.e., arrest). Over 1,100 surveys were completed. Second, a follow-up survey was mailed to citizens whom the police had contacted during their response. These surveys asked questions to assess citizen satisfaction with response time and outcome. Over 425 of these surveys were returned.

The data collected during the study showed that response time did not determine whether or not the police made an arrest or recovered stolen property. This was the most surprising finding from the study because it challenged one of the basic underlying principles of police patrol. Researchers attributed the lack of significance to the fact that most citizens waited before calling the police. Rapid response simply did not matter in situations where citizens delayed in reporting the crime.

Rapid response time was not only believed to be important in determining the outcome of a response (i.e., more likely to lead to an arrest), it was also considered an important predictor of citizen satisfaction. Data from the study showed that when the police arrived sooner than expected, citizens were more satisfied with response time. However, subsequent research has shown that citizens are also satisfied with a delayed response as long as the dispatcher sets a reasonable expectation for when the patrol officer will arrive. Response time was also the best predictor of how satisfied a citizen was with the responding officer. It was further revealed that citizens became dissatisfied with the police when they were not informed of the outcome (i.e., someone was arrested). Again, these findings indicate the need for dispatchers and patrol officers to communicate with complainants regarding when they should expect an officer to arrive and the outcome of the call.

Based on the results of the response time study, the researchers concluded that rapid response was not as important as police administrators had thought. Response time was not related to an officer’s ability to make an arrest or recover stolen property. Results from the response time study challenged traditional beliefs about the allocation of patrol in our communities. Based on tradition knowledge, as previously discussed, rapidly responding to calls for service is what the police had always done since they started using patrol vehicles. In addition, common sense, as previously discussed, played a role in the practice of rapid response to calls for service; it just made sense that if a patrol officer arrives sooner, she will be more likely to make an arrest.

Prior to the research, police departments operated under the assumption that rapid response was a crucial factor in the ability of an officer to solve a crime and an important predictor of citizen satisfaction. In response to the research on rapid response, many police departments changed the way they responded to calls for service. Many departments adopted a differential police response approach. Differential police response protocols allow police departments to prioritize calls and rapidly dispatch an officer only when an immediate response is needed (i.e., crimes in progress). For crimes in progress, rapid response is critical and may reduce the injuries sustained by the victim as well, but these emergency calls usually account for less than 2% of all 9-1-1 calls for police service. For nonemergency calls, an officer is either dispatched at a later time when the officer is available or a report is taken over the phone or through some other means. Differential police response has been shown to save departments money and give patrol officers more time to engage in community-oriented and proactive policing activities. The benefits for a department are not at the expense of the public. In fact, a study by Robert Worden found a high degree of citizen satisfaction with differential police response. 79

Courts Research Example 80

Research on the courts component of the criminal justice system, while far from complete, has produced direct effects on the operations of the criminal justice system. The study reviewed in this section asked the following research question: Are jurors able to understand different legal rules for establishing a defendant’s criminal responsibility? The study described below explored the issue of criminal responsibility as it applies to the insanity defense in the United States. For several years, the M ’ Naghten rule was the legal rule applied in all courts of the United States. Under M ’ Naghten, criminal responsibility was absent when the offender did not understand the nature of his actions due to failure to distinguish “right” from “wrong.” This is known as the “right/wrong test” for criminal responsibility. The case of Durham v. United States was heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and offered an alternative test for criminal responsibility and insanity. The legal rule emerging from Durham was that criminal responsibility was absent if the offense was a product of mental disease or defect. This ruling provided psychiatrists with a more important role at trial because of the requirement that the behavior be linked to a mental disorder that only a psychiatrist could officially determine.

At the time of Simon’s 1967 study, most courts across the country still followed the M ’ Naghten rule. Questions arose, however, regarding whether juries differed in their understanding of M ’ Naghten versus Durham and, in turn, whether this resulted in differences in their ability to make informed decisions regarding criminal responsibility in cases involving the insanity defense. The study was designed to determine the effect of different legal rules on jurors’ decision-making in cases where the defense was insanity. There was a question of whether there was a difference between the rules to the extent that jurors understood each rule and could capably apply it.

Simon conducted an experimental study on jury deliberations in cases where the only defense was insanity. 81 Utilizing a mock jury approach, Simon took the transcripts of two actual trials with one reflecting the use of the M ’ Naghten rule and the other the Durham rule. Both cases were renamed and the transcripts were edited to constitute a trial of 60–90 minutes in length. These edited transcripts were then recorded, with University of Chicago Law School faculty as the attorneys, judges, and witnesses involved in each case. Groups of 12 jurors listened to each trial with instruction provided at the end regarding the particular rule of law ( M ’ Naghten or Durham) for determining criminal responsibility. Each juror submitted a written statement with his or her initial decision on the case before jury deliberations, and the juries’ final decisions after deliberation were also reported.

Simon found significant differences in the verdicts across the two groups ( M ’ Naghten rule applied and Durham rule applied) even when the case was the same. For the M ’ Naghten version of the case, the psychiatrists stated that the defendant was mentally ill yet knew right from wrong during the crime. These statements/instructions should have led to a guilty verdict on the part of the mock jury. As expected, the M ’ Naghten juries delivered guilty verdicts in 19 of the 20 trials, with one hung jury. For the Durham version of the case, the psychiatrists stated that the crime resulted from the defendant’s mental illness, which should have lead to acquittal. However, the defendant was acquitted in only five of the 26 Durham trials. Twenty-six groups of 12 jurors were exposed to the Durham version of the trial and the case was the same each time. Simon interpreted these results as suggesting that jurors were unambiguous in their interpretations and applications of M ’ Naghten (due to the consistency in guilty verdicts), but they were less clear on the elements of Durham and how to apply it (reflected by the mix of guilty, not guilty, and hung verdicts). 82

After Simon’s study, most states rejected the Durham test. Recall her finding that the Durham rule produced inconsistent verdicts. She interpreted this finding as Durham being no better than providing no guidance to jurors on how to decide the issue of insanity. The observation helped to fuel arguments against the use of Durham, which, in turn, contributed to its demise as a legal rule. Today, only New Hampshire uses a version of the Durham rule in insanity cases.

WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS: IMPACTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE OPERATIONS

The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male

Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer 83 hypothesized that African Americans overall were not likely to be treated more harshly than white defendants by the courts because it was only particular subgroups of minority defendants that fit with court actors’ stereotypes of “more dangerous” offenders. In particular, they argued that younger African American males not only fulfilled this stereotype more than any other age, race, and gender combination, they were also more likely to be perceived by judges as being able to handle incarceration better than other subgroups.

In order to test their hypotheses, the researchers examined sentencing data from Pennsylvania spanning four years (1989–1992). Almost 139,000 cases were examined. The sentences they examined included whether a convicted defendant was incarcerated in prison or jail, and the length of incarceration in prison or jail. The researchers found that offense severity and prior record were the most important predictors of whether a convicted defendant was incarcerated and the length of incarceration. The authors found that the highest likelihood of incarceration and the longest sentences for males were distributed to African Americans aged 18–29 years. Their analysis of females revealed that white females were much less likely than African American females to be incarcerated, regardless of the age group examined. Taken altogether, the analysis revealed that African American males aged 18–29 years maintained the highest odds of incarceration and the longest sentences relative to any other race, sex, and age group.

Overall, this research showed that judges focused primarily on legal factors (offense severity and prior record) when determining the sentences of convicted offenders. These are the factors we expect judges to consider when making sentencing decisions. However, the research also found that judges base their decisions in part on extralegal factors, particularly the interaction of a defendant’s age, race, and gender. This research expanded our knowledge beyond the impact of singular factors on sentencing to expose the interaction effects of several variables (race, gender, and age). Court personnel are aware of these interaction effects based on this study, and others that followed, as well as their personal experiences in the criminal justice system. Identification and recognition of inequities in our justice system (in this case that young, African American males are punished more severely in our justice system) is the first step in mitigating this inequity.

Corrections Research Example 84

Although the research in corrections is far from complete, it has contributed greatly to the development of innovative programs and the professional development of correctional personnel. The contributions of academic and policy-oriented research can be seen across the whole range of correctional functions from pretrial services through probation, institutional corrections, and parole.

Rehabilitation remained the goal of our correctional system until the early 1970s, when the efficacy of rehabilitation was questioned. Violent crime was on the rise, and many politicians placed the blame on the criminal justice system. Some believed the system was too lenient on offenders. Interest in researching the effectiveness of correctional treatment remained low until 1974 when an article written by Robert Martinson and published in Public Interest titled “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform” generated enormous political and public attention to the effectiveness of correctional treatment. 85

Over a six-month period, Martinson and his colleagues reviewed all of the existing literature on correctional treatment published in English from 1945 to 1967. Each of the articles was evaluated according to traditional standards of social science research. Only studies that utilized an experimental design, included a sufficient sample size, and could be replicated were selected for review. A total of 231 studies examining a variety of different types of treatment were chosen, including educational and vocational training, individual and group counseling, therapeutic milieus, medical treatment, differences in length and type of incarceration, and community corrections. All of the treatment studies included at least one measure of offender recidivism, such as whether or not offenders were rearrested or violated their parole. The recidivism measures were used to examine the success or failure of a program in terms of reducing crime.

After reviewing all 231 studies, Martinson reported that there was no consistent evidence that correctional treatment reduced recidivism. Specifically, he wrote, “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.” 86 Martinson further indicated that the lack of empirical support for correctional treatment could be a consequence of poorly implemented programs. If the quality of the programs were improved, the results may have proved more favorable, but this conclusion was for the most part ignored by the media and policy-makers.

Martinson’s report became commonly referred to as “nothing works” and was subsequently used as the definitive study detailing the failures of rehabilitation. The article had implications beyond questioning whether or not specific types of correctional treatment reduced recidivism. The entire philosophy of rehabilitation was now in doubt because of Martinson’s conclusion that “our present strategies … cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendencies of offenders to continue in criminal behavior.” 87

Martinson’s article provided policy makers the evidence to justify spending cuts on rehabilitative programs. Furthermore, it allowed politicians to respond to growing concerns about crime with punitive, get-tough strategies. States began implementing strict mandatory sentences that resulted in more criminals being sent to prison and for longer periods of time. Over the next several years, Martinson’s article was used over and over to support abandoning efforts to treat offenders until rehabilitation became virtually nonexistent in our correctional system.

Chapter Summary

This chapter began with a discussion of sources of knowledge development and the problems with each. To depict the importance of research methods in knowledge development, myths about crime and the criminal justice system were reviewed along with research studies that have dispelled myths. As the introductory chapter in this text, this chapter also provided an overview of the steps in the research process from selecting a topic and conducting a literature review at the beginning of a research study to reporting findings, results, and limitations at the end of the study. Examples of actual research studies in the areas of police, courts, and corrections were also provided in this chapter to demonstrate the research process in action and to illustrate how research has significantly impacted practices within the criminal justice system. In addition, this chapter demonstrated the critical importance of becoming an informed consumer of research in both your personal and professional lives.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What are the primary sources of knowledge development, and what are the problems with each?

2. How is knowledge developed through research methods different from other sources of knowledge?

3. What myths about crime and criminal justice have been dispelled through research? Give an example of a research study that dispelled a myth.

4. Why is it important to be an informed consumer of research?

5. What are the steps in the research process, and what activities occur at each step?

authority knowledge: Knowledge developed when we accept something as being correct and true just because someone in a position of authority says it is true

case study: An in-depth analysis of one or a few illustrative cases

common sense knowledge: Knowledge developed when the information “just makes sense”

content analysis: A method requiring the analyzing of content contained in mass communication outlets such as newspapers, television, magazines, and the like

CSI Effect: Due to the unrealistic portrayal of the role of forensic science in solving criminal cases in television shows, jurors are more likely to vote to acquit a defendant when the expected sophisticated forensic evidence is not presented

differential police response: Methods that allow police departments to prioritize calls and rapidly dispatch an officer only when an immediate response is needed (i.e., crimes in progress)

experimental designs: Used when researchers are interested in determining whether a program, policy, practice, or intervention is effective

field research: Research that involves researchers studying individuals or groups of individuals in their natural environment

Halloween sadism: The practice of giving contaminated treats to children during trick or treating

hypotheses: Statements about the expected relationship between two concepts

illogical reasoning: Occurs when someone jumps to premature conclusions or presents an argument that is based on invalid assumptions

myths: Beliefs that are based on emotion rather than rigorous analysis

operationalization: The process of giving a concept a working definition; determining how each concept in your study will be measured

overgeneralization: Occurs when people conclude that what they have observed in one or a few cases is true for all cases

personal experience knowledge: Knowledge developed through actual experiences

research: The scientific investigation of an issue, problem, or subject utilizing research methods

research methods: The tools that allow criminology and criminal justice researchers to systematically study crime and the criminal justice system and include the basic rules, appropriate techniques, and relevant procedures for conducting research

resistance to change: The reluctance to change our beliefs in light of new, accurate, and valid information to the contrary

secondary data analysis: Occurs when researchers obtain and reanalyze data that were originally collected for a different purpose

selective observation: Choosing, either consciously or unconsciously, to pay attention to and remember events that support our personal preferences and beliefs

survey research: Obtaining data directly from research participants by asking them questions, often conducted through self-administered questionnaires and personal interviews

tradition knowledge: Knowledge developed when we accept something as true because that is the way things have always been, so it must be right

variables: Concepts that have been given a working definition and can take on different values

1 Briggs, Lisa T., Stephen E. Brown, Robert B. Gardner, and Robert L. Davidson. (2009). “D.RA.MA: An extended conceptualization of student anxiety in criminal justice research methods courses.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 20 (3), 217–226.

2 Betz, N. E. (1978). “Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology 25 (5), 441–448.

3 Briggs, et al., 2009, p. 221.

4 Ibid, p. 221.

5 Ibid, p. 221.

6 Kappeler, Victor E., and Gary W. Potter. (2005). The mythology of crime and criminal justice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

7 Tennessee v. Gamer, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

8 Lombroso-Ferrero, Gina. (1911). Criminal man, according to the classification of Cesare Lombroso. New York: Putnam.

9 This study was included in Amy B. Thistlethwaite and John D. Wooldredge. (2010). Forty studies that changed criminal justice: Explorations into the history of criminal justice research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

10 Petersilia, J., S. Turner, J. Kahan, and J. Peterson. (1985). Granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

11 Vito, G. (1986). “Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response.” Federal Probation 50, 17–25.

12 Conrad, J. (1985). “Research and development in corrections.” Federal Probation 49, 69–71.

13 Finckenauer, James O. (1982). Scared straight! and the panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14 Yarborough, J.C. (1979). Evaluation of JOLT (Juvenile Offenders Learn Truth) as a deterrence program. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Corrections.

15 Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and James O. Finckenauer. (2000). “Well-meaning programs can have harmful effects! Lessons from experiments of programs such as Scared Straight,” Crime & Delinquency 46, 354–379.

16 Robertson, Jordan. “I’m being punished for living right”: Background check system is haunted by errors. December 20, 2011. http://finance.yahoo.com/news /ap-impact-criminal-past-isnt-182335059.html. Retrieved on December 29, 2011.

17 Shelton, D. E. (2008). “The ‘CSI Effect’: Does it really exist?” NIJ Journal 259 [NCJ 221501].

18 Best, Joel. (2011). “Halloween sadism: The evidence.” http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/handle/ 19716/726/Halloween%20sadism.revised%20thru%20201l.pdf?sequence=6. Retrieved on May 7, 2012.

19 Best, Joel. (1985, November). “The myth of the Halloween sadist. Psychology Today 19 (11), p. 14.

21 “Beer compound shows potent promise in prostate cancer battle.” Press release from Oregon State University May 30, 2006. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2006/ may/beer-compound-shows-potent-promise-prostate-cancer-battle. Retrieved on January 6, 2012; Colgate, Emily C., Cristobal L. Miranda, Jan F. Stevens, Tammy M. Bray, and Emily Ho. (2007). “Xanthohumol, a prenylflavonoid derived from hops induces apoptosis and inhibits NF-kappaB activation in prostate epithelial cells,” Cancer Letters 246, 201–209; “Health benefits of red wine exaggerated” http://health.yahoo.net/articles /nutrition/health-benefits-red-wine-exaggerated. Retrieved on January 14, 2012; “Scientific journals notified following research misconduct investigation.” January 11, 2012. http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2012/01/scientific-journals -notified-following-research-misconduct-investigation/. Retrieved on January 14, 2012.

22 Pepinsky, Hal. “The myth that crime and criminality can be measured.” 3–11 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

23 Bullock, Jennifer L., and Bruce A. Arrigo. “The myth that mental illness causes crime.” 12–19 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

24 Friedrichs, David O. “The myth that white-collar crime is only about financial loss.” 20–28 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

25 Kuhns III, Joseph B., and Charisse T. M. Coston. “The myth that serial murderers are disproportionately white males.” 37–44 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

26 Longmire, Dennis R., Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum, and Scott Vollum. “The myth of positive differentiation in the classification of dangerous offenders.” 123–131 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

27 Masters, Ruth E., Lori Beth Way, Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, Bernadette T. Muscat, Michael Hooper, John P. J. Dussich, Lester Pincu, and Candice A. Skrapec. (2013). CJ realities and challenges, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

32 Brownstein, Henry H. “The myth of drug users as violent offenders.” 45–53 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

33 Goldstein, P. (1985). “The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework.” Journal of Drug Issues 15, 493–506.

34 Goldstein, P, H. Brownstein, and P. Ryan. (1992). “Drug-related homicide in New York City: 1984 and 1988.” Crime & Delinquency 38, 459–476.

35 Parker, R., and K. Auerhahn. (1998). “Alcohol, drugs, and violence.” Annual Review of Sociology 24, 291–311, p. 291.

36 Buerger, Michael. “The myth of racial profiling.” 97–103 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

37 Cordner, Gary, and Kathryn E. Scarborough. “The myth that science solves crimes.” 104–110 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

38 Willis, James J., Stephen D. Mastrofski, and David Weisburd. “The myth that COMPSTAT reduces crime and transforms police organizations.” 111–119 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

39 Masters, et al., 2013.

43 Scott, Eric J. (1981). Calls for service: Citizen demand and initial police response. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

44 Lersch, Kim. “The myth of policewomen on patrol.” 89–96 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

45 Janikowski, Richard. “The myth that the exclusionary rule allows many criminals to escape justice.” 132–139 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

46 Bishop, Donna M. “The myth that harsh punishments reduce juvenile crime.” 140–148 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

47 Immarigeon, Russ. “The myth that public attitudes are punitive.” 149–157 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

48 Acker, James R. “The myth of closure and capital punishment.” 167–175 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

49 Masters, et al., 2013.

52 Lersch, 2006.

53 Newport, Frank. “In U.S., support for death penalty falls to 39-year low.” October 13, 2011. http://www.gallup .com/poll/150089/support-death-penalty-falls-year-low.aspx. Retrieved on April 16, 2012.

54 Applegate, Brandon. “The myth that the death penalty is administered fairly.” 158–166 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

55 Williams, M. R., and J. E. Holcomb. (2001). “Racial disparity and death sentences in Ohio.” Journal of Criminal Justice 29, 207–218.

56 Snell, Tracy L. (2011, December). Capital punishment, 2010—statistical tables. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

57 Applegate, 2006.

58 Williams and Holcomb, 2001.

59 Applegate, 2006.

61 Wood, Peter B. “The myth that imprisonment is the most severe form of punishment.” 192–200 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

63 Michalowski, Raymond. “The myth that punishment reduces crime.” 179–191 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

64 McShane, Marilyn, Frank P. Williams III, and Beth Pelz. “The myth of prisons as country clubs.” 201–208 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

65 Parker, Mary. “The myth that prisons can be self-supporting.” 209–213 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

66 Blakely, Curtis, and John Ortiz Smykla. “Correctional privatization and the myth of inherent efficiency.” 214–220 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

67 Jones, G. Mark. “The myth that the focus of community corrections is rehabilitation.” 221–226 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

68 Cullen, Francis T., and Paula Smith. “The myth that correctional rehabilitation does not work.” 227–238 in Bohm, Robert M., and Jeffrey T. Walker. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

69 Masters, et al., 2013.

73 Petersilia, Joan. (1990). “When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation 54, 23–27.

75 Wood, P. B., and H. G. Grasmick. (1999). “Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison.” Justice Quarterly 16, 19–50.

76 Example is excerpted from Amy B. Thistlethwaite and John D. Wooldredge. (2010). Forty studies that changed criminal justice: Explorations into the history of criminal justice research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. This is an excellent book that demonstrates the impact research has had on criminal justice operations.

77 National Commission on Productivity. (1973). Opportunities for improving productivity in police services. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, p. 19.

78 Pate, T., A. Ferrara, R. Bowers, and J. Lorence. (1976). Police response time: Its determinants and effects. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

79 Worden, R. (1993). “Toward equity and efficiency in law enforcement: Differential police response. American Journal of Police 12, 1–32.

80 Example is excerpted from Amy B. Thistlethwaite and John D. Wooldredge. (2010). Forty studies that changed criminal justice: Explorations into the history of criminal justice research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

81 Simon, R. (1967). The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.

83 Steffensmeier, D., J. Ulmer, & J. Kramer. (1998). “The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36, 763–797.

84 Example is excerpted from Amy B. Thistlethwaite and John D. Wooldredge. (2010). Forty studies that changed criminal justice: Explorations into the history of criminal justice research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

85 Martinson, R. (1974). “What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.” The Public Interest 10, 22–54.

86 Ibid, p. 25.

87 Ibid, p. 49.

Applied Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology by University of North Texas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Complex questions, innovative approaches

Early warning sign of extinction?

So much for summers of love

Lessons in learning.

Sean Finamore ’22 (left) and Xaviera Zime ’22 study during a lecture in the Science Center.

Photos by Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

Peter Reuell

Harvard Staff Writer

Study shows students in ‘active learning’ classrooms learn more than they think

For decades, there has been evidence that classroom techniques designed to get students to participate in the learning process produces better educational outcomes at virtually all levels.

And a new Harvard study suggests it may be important to let students know it.

The study , published Sept. 4 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that, though students felt as if they learned more through traditional lectures, they actually learned more when taking part in classrooms that employed so-called active-learning strategies.

Lead author Louis Deslauriers , the director of science teaching and learning and senior physics preceptor, knew that students would learn more from active learning. He published a key study in Science in 2011 that showed just that. But many students and faculty remained hesitant to switch to it.

“Often, students seemed genuinely to prefer smooth-as-silk traditional lectures,” Deslauriers said. “We wanted to take them at their word. Perhaps they actually felt like they learned more from lectures than they did from active learning.”

In addition to Deslauriers, the study is authored by director of sciences education and physics lecturer Logan McCarty , senior preceptor in applied physics Kelly Miller, preceptor in physics Greg Kestin , and Kristina Callaghan, now a physics lecturer at the University of California, Merced.

The question of whether students’ perceptions of their learning matches with how well they’re actually learning is particularly important, Deslauriers said, because while students eventually see the value of active learning, initially it can feel frustrating.

“Deep learning is hard work. The effort involved in active learning can be misinterpreted as a sign of poor learning,” he said. “On the other hand, a superstar lecturer can explain things in such a way as to make students feel like they are learning more than they actually are.”

To understand that dichotomy, Deslauriers and his co-authors designed an experiment that would expose students in an introductory physics class to both traditional lectures and active learning.

For the first 11 weeks of the 15-week class, students were taught using standard methods by an experienced instructor. In the 12th week, half the class was randomly assigned to a classroom that used active learning, while the other half attended highly polished lectures. In a subsequent class, the two groups were reversed. Notably, both groups used identical class content and only active engagement with the material was toggled on and off.

Following each class, students were surveyed on how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “I feel like I learned a lot from this lecture” and “I wish all my physics courses were taught this way.” Students were also tested on how much they learned in the class with 12 multiple-choice questions.

When the results were tallied, the authors found that students felt as if they learned more from the lectures, but in fact scored higher on tests following the active learning sessions. “Actual learning and feeling of learning were strongly anticorrelated,” Deslauriers said, “as shown through the robust statistical analysis by co-author Kelly Miller, who is an expert in educational statistics and active learning.”

Those results, the study authors are quick to point out, shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting students dislike active learning. In fact, many studies have shown students quickly warm to the idea, once they begin to see the results. “In all the courses at Harvard that we’ve transformed to active learning,” Deslauriers said, “the overall course evaluations went up.”

Co-author Kestin, who in addition to being a physicist is a video producer with PBS’ NOVA, said, “It can be tempting to engage the class simply by folding lectures into a compelling ‘story,’ especially when that’s what students seem to like. I show my students the data from this study on the first day of class to help them appreciate the importance of their own involvement in active learning.”

McCarty, who oversees curricular efforts across the sciences, hopes this study will encourage more of his colleagues to embrace active learning.

“We want to make sure that other instructors are thinking hard about the way they’re teaching,” he said. “In our classes, we start each topic by asking students to gather in small groups to solve some problems. While they work, we walk around the room to observe them and answer questions. Then we come together and give a short lecture targeted specifically at the misconceptions and struggles we saw during the problem-solving activity. So far we’ve transformed over a dozen classes to use this kind of active-learning approach. It’s extremely efficient — we can cover just as much material as we would using lectures.”

A pioneer in work on active learning, Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics Eric Mazur hailed the study as debunking long-held beliefs about how students learn.

“This work unambiguously debunks the illusion of learning from lectures,” he said. “It also explains why instructors and students cling to the belief that listening to lectures constitutes learning. I recommend every lecturer reads this article.”

Dean of Science Christopher Stubbs , Samuel C. Moncher Professor of Physics and of Astronomy, was an early convert. “When I first switched to teaching using active learning, some students resisted that change. This research confirms that faculty should persist and encourage active learning. Active engagement in every classroom, led by our incredible science faculty, should be the hallmark of residential undergraduate education at Harvard.”

Ultimately, Deslauriers said, the study shows that it’s important to ensure that neither instructors nor students are fooled into thinking that lectures are the best learning option. “Students might give fabulous evaluations to an amazing lecturer based on this feeling of learning, even though their actual learning isn’t optimal,” he said. “This could help to explain why study after study shows that student evaluations seem to be completely uncorrelated with actual learning.”

This research was supported with funding from the Harvard FAS Division of Science.

Share this article

You might like.

Seven projects awarded Star-Friedman Challenge grants

Fossil record stretching millions of years shows tiny ocean creatures on the move before Earth heats up

Despite ‘hippie’ reputation, male bonobos fight three times as often as chimps, study finds

When math is the dream

Dora Woodruff was drawn to beauty of numbers as child. Next up: Ph.D. at MIT.

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

Three will receive 2024 Harvard Medal

In recognition of their extraordinary service

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
• Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
• Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ( Figure 2.3 ). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition (Margaret Floy Washburn, PhD, n.d.). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States (Mary Whiton Calkins, n.d.).

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Significance of a Study: Revisiting the “So What” Question

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

16k Accesses

Every researcher wants their study to matter—to make a positive difference for their professional communities. To ensure your study matters, you can formulate clear hypotheses and choose methods that will test them well, as described in Chaps. 1, 2, 3 and 4. You can go further, however, by considering some of the terms commonly used to describe the importance of studies, terms like significance, contributions, and implications. As you clarify for yourself the meanings of these terms, you learn that whether your study matters depends on how convincingly you can argue for its importance. Perhaps most surprising is that convincing others of its importance rests with the case you make before the data are ever gathered. The importance of your hypotheses should be apparent before you test them. Are your predictions about things the profession cares about? Can you make them with a striking degree of precision? Are the rationales that support them compelling? You are answering the “So what?” question as you formulate hypotheses and design tests of them. This means you can control the answer. You do not need to cross your fingers and hope as you collect data.

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

Part I. Setting the Groundwork

One of the most common questions asked of researchers is “So what?” What difference does your study make? Why are the findings important? The “so what” question is one of the most basic questions, often perceived by novice researchers as the most difficult question to answer. Indeed, addressing the “so what” question continues to challenge even experienced researchers. It is not always easy to articulate a convincing argument for the importance of your work. It can be especially difficult to describe its importance without falling into the trap of making claims that reach beyond the data.

That this issue is a challenge for researchers is illustrated by our analysis of reviewer comments for JRME . About one-third of the reviews for manuscripts that were ultimately rejected included concerns about the importance of the study. Said another way, reviewers felt the “So what?” question had not been answered. To paraphrase one journal reviewer, “The manuscript left me unsure of what the contribution of this work to the field’s knowledge is, and therefore I doubt its significance.” We expect this is a frequent concern of reviewers for all research journals.

Our goal in this chapter is to help you navigate the pressing demands of journal reviewers, editors, and readers for demonstrating the importance of your work while staying within the bounds of acceptable claims based on your results. We will begin by reviewing what we have said about these issues in previous chapters. We will then clarify one of the confusing aspects of developing appropriate arguments—the absence of consensus definitions of key terms such as significance, contributions, and implications. Based on the definitions we propose, we will examine the critical role of alignment for realizing the potential significance of your study. Because the importance of your study is communicated through your evolving research paper, we will fold suggestions for writing your paper into the discussion of creating and executing your study.

We laid the groundwork in Chap. 1 for what we consider to be important research in education:

In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to support the improvement of learning opportunities for all students…. If there is no way to imagine a connection to improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Of course, you might prefer another “ultimate purpose” for research in education. That’s fine. The critical point is that the argument for the importance of the hypotheses you are testing should be connected to the value of a long-term goal you can describe. As long as most of the educational community agrees with this goal, and you can show how testing your hypotheses will move the field forward to achieving this goal, you will have developed a convincing argument for the importance of your work.

In Chap. 2 , we argued the importance of your hypotheses can and should be established before you collect data. Your theoretical framework should carry the weight of your argument because it should describe how your hypotheses will extend what is already known. Your methods should then show that you will test your hypotheses in an appropriate way—in a way that will allow you to detect how the results did, and did not, confirm the hypotheses. This will, in turn, allow you to formulate revised hypotheses. We described establishing the importance of your study by saying, “The importance can come from the fact that, based on the results, you will be able to offer revised hypotheses that help the field better understand an issue relevant for improving all students’ learning opportunities.”

The ideas from Chaps. 1 , 2 , and 3 go a long way toward setting the parameters for what counts as an important study and how its importance can be determined. Chapter 4 focused on ensuring that the importance of a study can be realized. The next section fills in the details by proposing definitions for the most common terms used to claim importance: significance, contributions, and implications.

You might notice that we do not have a chapter dedicated to discussing the presentation of the findings—that is, a “results” chapter. We do not mean to imply that presenting results is trivial. However, we believe that if you follow our recommendations for writing your evolving research paper, presenting the results will be quite straightforward. The key is to present your results so they can be most easily compared with your predictions. This means, among other things, organizing your presentation of results according to your earlier presentation of hypotheses.

Part II. Clarifying Importance by Revisiting the Definitions of Key Terms

What does it mean to say your findings are significant? Statistical significance is clear. There are widely accepted standards for determining the statistical significance of findings. But what about educational significance? Is this the same as claiming that your study makes an important contribution? Or, that your study has important implications? Different researchers might answer these questions in different ways. When key terms like these are overused, their definitions gradually broaden or shift, and they can lose their meaning. That is unfortunate, because it creates confusion about how to develop claims for the importance of a study.

By clarifying the definitions, we hope to clarify what is required to claim that a study is significant , that it makes a contribution , and that it has important implications . Not everyone defines the terms as we do. Our definitions are probably a bit narrower or more targeted than those you may encounter elsewhere. Depending on where you want to publish your study, you may want to adapt your use of these terms to match more closely the expectations of a particular journal. But the way we define and address these terms is not antithetical to common uses. And we believe ridding the terms of unnecessary overlap allows us to discriminate among different key concepts with respect to claims for the importance of research studies. It is not necessary to define the terms exactly as we have, but it is critical that the ideas embedded in our definitions be distinguished and that all of them be taken into account when examining the importance of a study.

We will use the following definitions:

Significance: The importance of the problem, questions, and/or hypotheses for improving the learning opportunities for all students (you can substitute a different long-term goal if its value is widely shared). Significance can be determined before data are gathered. Significance is an attribute of the research problem , not the research findings .

Contributions : The value of the findings for revising the hypotheses, making clear what has been learned, what is now better understood.

Implications : Deductions about what can be concluded from the findings that are not already included in “contributions.” The most common deductions in educational research are for improving educational practice. Deductions for research practice that are not already defined as contributions are often suggestions about research methods that are especially useful or methods to avoid.

Significance

The significance of a study is built by formulating research questions and hypotheses you connect through a careful argument to a long-term goal of widely shared value (e.g., improving learning opportunities for all students). Significance applies both to the domain in which your study is located and to your individual study. The significance of the domain is established by choosing a goal of widely shared value and then identifying a domain you can show is connected to achieving the goal. For example, if the goal to which your study contributes is improving the learning opportunities for all students, your study might aim to understand more fully how things work in a domain such as teaching for conceptual understanding, or preparing teachers to attend to all students, or designing curricula to support all learners, or connecting learning opportunities to particular learning outcomes.

The significance of your individual study is something you build ; it is not predetermined or self-evident. Significance of a study is established by making a case for it, not by simply choosing hypotheses everyone already thinks are important. Although you might believe the significance of your study is obvious, readers will need to be convinced.

Significance is something you develop in your evolving research paper. The theoretical framework you present connects your study to what has been investigated previously. Your argument for significance of the domain comes from the significance of the line of research of which your study is a part. The significance of your study is developed by showing, through the presentation of your framework, how your study advances this line of research. This means the lion’s share of your answer to the “So what?” question will be developed as part of your theoretical framework.

Although defining significance as located in your paper prior to presenting results is not a definition universally shared among educational researchers, it is becoming an increasingly common view. In fact, there is movement toward evaluating the significance of a study based only on the first sections of a research paper—the sections prior to the results (Makel et al., 2021 ).

In addition to addressing the “So what?” question, your theoretical framework can address another common concern often voiced by readers: “What is so interesting? I could have predicted those results.” Predictions do not need to be surprising to be interesting and significant. The significance comes from the rationales that show how the predictions extend what is currently known. It is irrelevant how many researchers could have made the predictions. What makes a study significant is that the theoretical framework and the predictions make clear how the study will increase the field’s understanding toward achieving a goal of shared value.

An important consequence of interpreting significance as a carefully developed argument for the importance of your research study within a larger domain is that it reveals the advantage of conducting a series of connected studies rather than single, disconnected studies. Building the significance of a research study requires time and effort. Once you have established significance for a particular study, you can build on this same argument for related studies. This saves time, allows you to continue to refine your argument across studies, and increases the likelihood your studies will contribute to the field.

Contributions

As we have noted, in fields as complicated as education, it is unlikely that your predictions will be entirely accurate. If the problem you are investigating is significant, the hypotheses will be formulated in such a way that they extend a line of research to understand more deeply phenomena related to students’ learning opportunities or another goal of shared value. Often, this means investigating the conditions under which phenomena occur. This gets complicated very quickly, so the data you gather will likely differ from your predictions in a variety of ways. The contributions your study makes will depend on how you interpret these results in light of the original hypotheses.

Contributions Emerge from Revisions to your Hypotheses

We view interpreting results as a process of comparing the data with the predictions and then examining the way in which hypotheses should be revised to more fully account for the results. Revising will almost always be warranted because, as we noted, predictions are unlikely to be entirely accurate. For example, if researchers expect Outcome A to occur under specified conditions but find that it does not occur to the extent predicted or actually does occur but without all the conditions, they must ask what changes to the hypotheses are needed to predict more accurately the conditions under which Outcome A occurred. Are there, for example, essential conditions that were not anticipated and that should be included in the revised hypotheses?

Consider an example from a recently published study (Wang et al., 2021 ). A team of researchers investigated the following research question: “How are students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs and their perceived mathematics achievement?” The researchers predicted that students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations would be highly related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs and their perceived mathematics achievement. The rationale was based largely on prior research that had consistently found parents’ general educational expectations to be highly correlated with students’ achievement.

The findings showed that Chinese high school students’ perceptions of their parents’ educational expectations were positively related to these students’ mathematics-related beliefs. In other words, students who believed their parents expected them to attain higher levels of education had more desirable mathematics-related beliefs.

However, students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations about mathematics achievement were not related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs in the same way as the more general parental educational expectations. Students who reported that their parents had no specific expectations possessed more desirable mathematics-related beliefs than all other subgroups. In addition, these students tended to perceive their mathematics achievement rank in their class to be higher on average than students who reported that their parents expressed some level of expectation for mathematics achievement.

Because this finding was not predicted, the researchers revised the original hypothesis. Their new prediction was that students who believe their parents have no specific mathematics achievement expectations possess more positive mathematics-related beliefs and higher perceived mathematics achievement than students who believe their parents do have specific expectations. They developed a revised rationale that drew on research on parental pressure and mathematics anxiety, positing that parents’ specific mathematics achievement expectations might increase their children’s sense of pressure and anxiety, thus fostering less positive mathematics-related beliefs. The team then conducted a follow-up study. Their findings aligned more closely with the new predictions and affirmed the better explanatory power of the revised rationale. The contributions of the study are found in this increased explanatory power—in the new understandings of this phenomenon contained in the revisions to the rationale.

Interpreting findings in order to revise hypotheses is not a straightforward task. Usually, the rationales blend multiple constructs or variables and predict multiple outcomes, with different outcomes connected to different research questions and addressed by different sets of data. Nevertheless, the contributions of your study depend on specifying the differences between your original hypotheses and your revised hypotheses. What can you explain now that you could not explain before?

We believe that revising hypotheses is an optimal response to any question of contributions because a researcher’s initial hypotheses plus the revisions suggested by the data are the most productive way to tie a study into the larger chain of research of which it is a part. Revised hypotheses represent growth in knowledge. Building on other researchers’ revised hypotheses and revising them further by more explicitly and precisely describing the conditions that are expected to influence the outcomes in the next study accumulates knowledge in a form that can be recorded, shared, built upon, and improved.

The significance of your study is presented in the opening sections of your evolving research paper whereas the contributions are presented in the final section, after the results. In fact, the central focus in this “Discussion” section should be a specification of the contributions (note, though, that this guidance may not fully align with the requirements of some journals).

Contributions Answer the Question of Generalizability

A common and often contentious, confusing issue that can befuddle novice and experienced researchers alike is the generalizability of results. All researchers prefer to believe the results they report apply to more than the sample of participants in their study. How important would a study be if the results applied only to, say, two fourth-grade classrooms in one school, or to the exact same tasks used as measures? How do you decide to which larger population (of students or tasks) your results could generalize? How can you state your claims so they are precisely those justified by the data?

To illustrate the challenge faced by researchers in answering these questions, we return to the JRME reviewers. We found that 30% of the reviews expressed concerns about the match between the results and the claims. For manuscripts that ultimately received a decision of Reject, the majority of reviewers said the authors had overreached—the claims were not supported by the data. In other words, authors generalized their claims beyond those that could be justified.

The Connection Between Contributions and Generalizability

In our view, claims about contributions can be examined productively alongside considerations of generalizability. To make the case for this view, we need to back up a bit. Recall that the purpose of research is to understand a phenomenon. To understand a phenomenon, you need to determine the conditions under which it occurs. Consequently, productive hypotheses specify the conditions under which the predictions hold and explain why and how these conditions make a difference. And the conditions set the parameters on generalizability. They identify when, where, and for whom the effect or situation will occur. So, hypotheses describe the extent of expected generalizability, and revised hypotheses that contain the contributions recalibrate generalizability and offer new predictions within these parameters.

An Example That Illustrates the Connection

In Chap. 4 , we introduced an example with a research question asking whether second graders improve their understanding of place value after a specially designed instructional intervention. We suggested asking a few second and third graders to complete your tasks to see if they generated the expected variation in performance. Suppose you completed this pilot study and now have satisfactory tasks. What conditions might influence the effect of the intervention? After careful study, you developed rationales that supported three conditions: the entry level of students’ understanding, the way in which the intervention is implemented, and the classroom norms that set expectations for students’ participation.

Suppose your original hypotheses predicted the desired effect of the intervention only if the students possessed an understanding of several concepts on which place value is built, only if the intervention was implemented with fidelity to the detailed instructional guidelines, and only if classroom norms encouraged students to participate in small-group work and whole-class discussions. Your claims of generalizability will apply to second-grade settings with these characteristics.

Now suppose you designed the study so the intervention occurred in five second-grade classrooms that agreed to participate. The pre-intervention assessment showed all students with the minimal level of entry understanding. The same well-trained teacher was employed to teach the intervention in all five classrooms, none of which included her own students. And you learned from prior observations and reports of the classroom teachers that three of the classrooms operated with the desired classroom norms, but two did not. Because of these conditions, your study is now designed to test one of your hypotheses—the desired effect will occur only if classroom norms encouraged students to participate in small-group work and whole-class discussions. This is the only condition that will vary; the other two (prior level of understanding and fidelity of implementation) are the same across classrooms so you will not learn how these affect the results.

Suppose the classrooms performed equally well on the post-intervention assessments. You expected lower performance in the two classrooms with less student participation, so you need to revise your hypotheses. The challenge is to explain the higher-than-expected performance of these students. Because you were interested in understanding the effects of this condition, you observed several lessons in all the classrooms during the intervention. You can now use this information to explain why the intervention worked equally well in classrooms with different norms.

Your revised hypothesis captures this part of your study’s contribution. You can now say more about the ways in which the intervention can help students improve their understanding of place value because you have different information about the role of classroom norms. This, in turn, allows you to specify more precisely the nature and extent of the generalizability of your findings. You now can generalize your findings to classrooms with different norms. However, because you did not learn more about the impact of students’ entry level understandings or of different kinds of implementation, the generalizability along these dimensions remains as limited as before.

This example is simplified. In many studies, the findings will be more complicated, and more conditions will likely be identified, some of which were anticipated and some of which emerged while conducting the study and analyzing the data. Nevertheless, the point is that generalizability should be tied to the conditions that are expected to affect the results. Further, unanticipated conditions almost always appear, so generalizations should be conservative and made with caution and humility. They are likely to change after testing the new predictions.

Contributions Are Assured When Hypotheses Are Significant and Methods Are Appropriate and Aligned

We have argued that the contributions of your study are produced by the revised hypotheses you can formulate based on your results. Will these revisions always represent contributions to the field? What if the revisions are minor? What if your results do not inform revisions to your hypotheses?

We will answer these questions briefly now and then develop them further in Part IV of this chapter. The answer to the primary question is “yes,” your revisions will always be a contribution to the field if (1) your hypotheses are significant and (2) you crafted appropriate methods to test the hypotheses. This is true even if your revisions are minor or if your data are not as informative as you expected. However, this is true only if you meet the two conditions in the earlier sentence. The first condition (significant hypotheses) can be satisfied by following the suggestions in the earlier section on significance. The second condition (appropriate methods) is addressed further in Part III in this chapter.

Implications

Before examining the role of methods in connecting significance with important contributions, we elaborate briefly our definition of “implications.” We reserve implications for the conclusions you can logically deduce from your findings that are not already presented as contributions. This means that, like contributions, implications are presented in the Discussion section of your research paper.

Many educational researchers present two types of implications: implications for future research and implications for practice. Although we are aware of this common usage, we believe our definition of “contributions” cover these implications. Clarifying why we call these “contributions” will explain why we largely reserve the word “implications” for recommendations regarding methods.

Implications for Future Research

Implications for future research often include (1) recommendations for empirical studies that would extend the findings of this study, (2) inferences about the usefulness of theoretical constructs, and (3) conclusions about the advisability of using particular kinds of methods. Given our earlier definitions, we prefer to label the first two types of implications as contributions.

Consider recommendations for empirical studies. After analyzing the data and presenting the results, we have suggested you compare the results with those predicted, revise the rationales for the original predictions to account for the results, and make new predictions based on the revised rationales. It is precisely these new predictions that can form the basis for recommending future research. Testing these new predictions is what would most productively extend this line of research. It can sometimes sound as if researchers are recommending future studies based on hunches about what research might yield useful findings. But researchers can do better than this. It would be more productive to base recommendations on a careful analysis of how the predictions of the original study could be sharpened and improved.

Now consider inferences about the usefulness of theoretical constructs. Our argument for labeling these inferences as contributions is similar. Rationales for predictions are where the relevant theoretical constructs are located. Revisions to these rationales based on the differences between the results and the predictions reveal the theoretical constructs that were affirmed to support accurate predictions and those that must be revised. In our view, usefulness is determined through this revision process.

Implications that do not come under our meaning of contributions are in the third type of implications, namely the appropriateness of methods for generating rich contributions. These kinds of implications are produced by your evaluation of your methods: research design, sampling procedures, tasks, data collection procedures, and data analyses. Although not always included in the discussion of findings, we believe it would be helpful for researchers to identify particular methods that were useful for conducting their study and those that should be modified or avoided. We believe these are appropriately called implications.

Implications for Practice

If the purpose of research is to better understand how to improve learning opportunities for all students, then it is appropriate to consider whether implications for improving educational practice can be drawn from the results of a study. How are these implications formulated? This is an important question because, in our view, these claims often come across as an afterthought, “Oh, I need to add some implications for practice.” But here is the sobering reality facing researchers: By any measure, the history of educational research shows that identifying these implications has had little positive effect on practice.

Perhaps the most challenging task for researchers who attempt to draw implications for practice is to interpret their findings for appropriate settings. A researcher who studied the instructional intervention for second graders on place value and found that average performance in the intervention classrooms improved more than in the textbook classrooms might be tempted to draw implications for practice. What should the researcher say? That second-grade teachers should adopt the intervention? Such an implication would be an overreach because, as we noted earlier, the findings cannot be generalized to all second-grade classrooms. Moreover, an improvement in average performance does not mean the intervention was better for all students.

The challenge is to identify the conditions under which the intervention would improve the learning opportunities for all students. Some of these conditions will be identified as the theoretical framework is built because the predictions need to account for these conditions. But some will be unforeseen, and some that are identified will not be informed by the findings. Recall that, in the study described earlier, a condition of entry level of understanding was hypothesized but the design of the study did not allow the researcher to draw any conclusions about its effect.

What can researchers say about implications for practice given the complexities involved in generalizing findings to other settings? We offer two recommendations. First, because it is difficult to specify all the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs, it is rarely appropriate to prescribe an educational practice. Researchers cannot anticipate the conditions under which individual teachers operate, conditions that often require adaptation of a suggested practice rather than implementation of a practice as prescribed.

Our second recommendation comes from returning to the purpose for educational research—to understand more fully how to improve learning opportunities for all students (or to achieve another goal of widely shared value). As we have described, understanding comes primarily from building and reevaluating rationales for your predictions. If you reach a new understanding related to improving learning opportunities, an understanding that could have practical implications, we recommend you share this understanding as an implication for practice.

For example, suppose the researcher who found better average performance of second graders after the intervention on place value had also studied several conditions under which performance improved. And suppose the researcher found that most students who did not improve their performance misunderstood a concept that appeared early in the intervention (e.g., the multiplicative relationship between positional values of a numeral). An implication for practice the researcher might share would be to describe the potential importance of understanding this concept early in the sequence of activities if teachers try out this intervention.

If you use our definitions, these implications for practice would be presented as contributions because they emerge directly from reevaluating and revising your rationales. We believe it is appropriate to use “Contributions” as the heading for this section in the Discussion section of your research paper. However, if editors prefer “Implications” we recommend following their suggestion.

We want to be clear that the terms you use for the different ways your study is important is not critical. We chose to define the terms significance, contributions, and implications in very specific and not universally shared ways to distinguish all the meanings of importance you should consider. Some of these can be established through your theoretical framework, some by the revisions of your hypotheses, and some by reflecting on the value of particular methods. The important thing, from our point of view, is that the ideas we defined for each of these terms are distinguished and recognized as specific ways of determining the importance of your study.

Part III. The Role of Methods in Determining Contributions

We have argued that every part of the study (and of the evolving research paper) should be aligned. All parts should be connected through a coherent chain of reasoning. In this chapter, we argue that the chain of reasoning is not complete until the methods are presented and the results are interpreted and discussed. The methods of the study create a bridge that connects the introductory material (research questions, theoretical framework, literature review, hypotheses) with the results and interpretations.

The role that methods play in scientific inquiry is to ensure that your hypotheses will be tested appropriately so the significance of your study will yield its potential contributions. To do this, the methods must do more than follow the standard guidelines and be technically correct (see Chap. 4 ). They must also fit with the surrounding parts of the study. We call this coherence.

Coherence Across the Phases of Scientific Inquiry

Coherence means the parts of a whole are fully aligned. When doing scientific inquiry, the early parts or phases should motivate the later phases. The methods you use should be motivated or explained by the earlier phases (e.g., research questions, theoretical framework, hypotheses). Your methods, in turn, should produce results that can be interpreted by comparing them with your predictions. Methods are aligned with earlier phases when you can use the rationales contained in your hypotheses to decide what kinds of data are needed to test your predictions, how best to gather these kinds of data, and what analyses should be performed (see Chap. 4 and Cai et al., 2019a ).

For a visual representation of this coherence, see Fig. 5.1 . Each box identifies an aspect of scientific inquiry. Hypotheses (shown in Box 1) include the rationales and predictions. Because the rationales encompass the theoretical framework and the literature review, Box 1 establishes the significance of the study. Box 2 represents the methods, which we defined in Chap. 4 as the entire set of procedures you will use, including the basic design, measures for collecting data, and analytic approaches. In Fig. 5.1 , the hypothesis in Box 1 points you to the methods you will use. That is, you will choose methods that provide data for analyses that will generate results or findings (Box 3) that allow you to make comparisons against your predictions. Based on those comparisons, you will revise your hypotheses and derive the contributions and implications of your study (Box 4).

The Chain of Coherence That Runs Through All Parts of a Research Study

We intend Fig. 5.1 to carry several messages. One is that coherence of a study and the associated research paper require all aspects of the study to flow from one into the other. Each set of prior entries must motivate and justify the next one. For example, the data and analyses you intend to gather and use in Box 2 (Methods) must be those that are motivated and explained by the research question and hypothesis (prediction and rationale) in Box 1.

A second message in the figure is that coherence includes Box 4, “Discussion.” Aligned with the first three boxes, the fourth box flows from these boxes but is also constrained by them. The contributions and implications authors describe in the Discussion section of the paper cannot go beyond what is allowed by the original hypotheses and the revisions to these hypotheses indicated by the findings.

Methods Enable Significance to Yield Contributions

We begin this section by identifying a third message conveyed in Fig. 5.1 . The methods of the study, represented by Box 2, provide a bridge that connects the significance of the study (Box 1) with the contributions of the study (Box 4). The results (Box 3) indicate the nature of the contributions by determining the revisions to the original hypotheses.

In our view, the connecting role played by the methods is often underappreciated. Crafting appropriate methods aligned with the significance of the study, on one hand, and the interpretations, on the other, can determine whether a study is judged to make a contribution.

If the hypotheses are established as significant, and if appropriate methods are used to test the predictions, the study will make important contributions even if the data are not statistically significant. We can say this another way. When researchers establish the significance of the hypotheses (i.e., convince readers they are of interest to the field) and use methods that provide a sound test of these hypotheses, the data they present will be of interest regardless of how they turn out. This is why Makel et al. ( 2021 ) endorse a review process for publication that emphasizes the significance of the study as presented in the first sections of a research paper.

Treating the methods as connecting the introductory arguments to the interpretations of data prevent researchers from making a common mistake: When writing the research paper, some researchers lose track of the research questions and/or the predictions. In other words, results are presented but are not interpreted as answers to the research questions or compared with the predictions. It is as if the introductory material of the paper begins one story, and the interpretations of results ends a different story. Lack of alignment makes it impossible to tell one coherent story.

A final point is that the alignment of a study cannot be evaluated and appreciated if the methods are not fully described. Methods must be described clearly and completely in the research paper so readers can see how they flow from the earlier phases of the study and how they yield the data presented. We suggested in Chap. 4 a rule of thumb for deciding whether the methods have been fully described: “Readers should be able to replicate the study if they wish.”

Part IV. Special Considerations that Affect a Study’s Contributions

We conclude Chap. 5 by addressing two additional issues that can affect how researchers interpret the results and make claims about the contributions of a study. Usually, researchers deal with these issues in the Discussion section of their research paper, but we believe it is useful to consider them as you plan and conduct your study. The issues can be posed as questions: How should I treat the limitations of my study? How should I deal with findings that are completely unexpected?

Limitations of a Study

We can identify two kinds of limitations: (1) limitations that constrain your ability to interpret your results because of unfortunate choices you made, and (2) limitations that constrain your ability to generalize your results because of missing variables you could not fit into the scope of your study or did not anticipate. We recommend different ways of dealing with these.

Limitations Due to Unfortunate Choices

All researchers make unfortunate choices. These are mistakes that could have been prevented. Often, they are choices in how a study was designed and/or executed. Maybe the sample did not have the characteristics assumed, or a task did not assess what was expected, or the intervention was not implemented as planned. Although many unfortunate choices can be prevented by thinking through the consequences of every decision or by conducting a well-designed pilot study or two, some will occur anyway. How should you deal with them?

The consequence of unfortunate choices is that the data do not test the hypotheses as precisely or completely as hoped. When this happens, the data must be interpreted with these constraints in mind. Almost always, this limits the researcher to making fewer or narrower claims than desired about differences and similarities between the results and the predictions. Usually this means conclusions about the ways in which the rationales must be revised require extra qualifications. In other words, claims about contributions of the study must be made with extra caution.

Research papers frequently include a subsection in the Discussion called “Limitations of the Study.” Researchers often use this subsection to identify the study’s limitations by describing the unfortunate choices, but they do not always spell out how these limitations should affect the contributions of the paper. Sometimes, it appears that researchers are simply checking off a requirement to identify the limitations by saying something like “The results should be interpreted with caution.” But this does not help readers understand exactly what cautions should be applied and it does not hold researchers accountable for the limitations.

We recommend something different. We suggest you do the hard work of figuring out how the data should be interpreted in light of the limitations and share these details with the readers. You might do this when the results are presented or when you interpret them. Rather than presenting your claims about the contributions of the study and then saying readers should interpret these with “caution” because of the study’s limitations, we suggest presenting only those interpretations and claims of contributions that can be made with the limitations in mind.

One way to think about the constraints you will likely need to impose on your interpretations is in terms of generalizability. Recall that earlier in this chapter, we described the close relationship between contributions and generalizability. When generalizability is restricted, so are contributions.

Limitations Due to Missing Variables

Because of the complexity of problems, questions, and hypotheses explored in educational research, researchers are unlikely to anticipate in their studies all the variables that affect the data and results. In addition, tradeoffs often must be made. Researchers cannot study everything at once, so decisions must be made about which variables to study carefully and which to either control or ignore.

In the earlier example of studying whether second graders improve their understanding of place value after a specially designed instructional intervention, the researcher identified three variables that were expected to influence the effect of the intervention: students’ entry level of understanding, implementation of the intervention, and norms of the classrooms in which the intervention was implemented. The researcher decided to control the implementation variable by hiring one experienced teacher to implement the intervention in all the classrooms. This meant the variable of individual teacher differences was not included in the study and the researcher could not generalize to classrooms with these differences.

Some researchers might see controlling the implementation of the intervention as a limitation. We do not. As a factor that is not allowed to vary, it constrains the generalizations a researcher can make, but we believe these kinds of controlled variables are better treated as opportunities for future research. Perhaps the researcher’s observations in the classroom provided information that could be used to make some predictions about which elements of the intervention are essential and which are optional—about which aspects of the intervention must be implemented as written and which can vary with different teachers. When revising the rationales to show what was learned in this study, the researcher could include rationales for new, tentative predictions about the effects of the intervention in classrooms where implementation differed in specified ways. These predictions create a genuine contribution of the study. If you use our definitions, these new predictions, often presented under “implications for future research,” would be presented as “contributions.”

Notice that if you follow our advice, you would not need to include a separate section in the Discussion of your paper labeled “Limitations.” We acknowledge, however, that some journal editors recommend such a subsection. In this case, we suggest you include this subsection along with treating the two different kinds of limitations as we recommend. You can do both.

Dealing with Unexpected Findings

Researchers are often faced with unexpected and perhaps surprising results, even when they have developed a convincing theoretical framework, posed research questions tightly connected to this framework, presented predictions about expected outcomes, and selected methods that appropriately test these predictions. Indeed, the unexpected findings can be the most interesting and valuable products of the study. They can range from mildly surprising to “Wow. I didn’t expect that.” How should researchers treat such findings? Our answer is based on two principles.

The first principle is that the value of research does not lie in whether the predictions are completely accurate but in helping the field learn more about the explanatory power of theoretical frameworks. That is, the value lies in the increased understanding of phenomena generated by examining the ability of theoretical frameworks (or rationales) to predict outcomes and explain results. The second principle, a corollary to the first, is to treat unexpected findings in a way that is most educative for the reader.

Based on our arguments to this point, you could guess we will say there will always be unexpected findings. Predicted answers to significant research questions in education will rarely, if ever, be entirely accurate. So, you can count on dealing with unexpected findings.

Consistent with the two principles above, your goal should be to use unexpected findings to understand more fully the phenomenon under investigation. We recommend one of three different paths. The choice of which path to take depends on what you decide after reflecting again on the decisions you made at each phase of the study.

The first path is appropriate when researchers reexamine their theoretical framework in light of the unexpected findings and decide that it is still a compelling framework based on previous work. They reason that readers are likely to have been convinced by this framework and would likely have made similar predictions. In this case, we believe that it is educative for researchers to (a) summarize their initial framework, (b) present the findings and distinguish those that were aligned with the predictions from those that were not, and (c) explain why the theoretical framework was inadequate and propose changes to the framework that would have created more alignment with the unexpected findings.

Revisions to initial hypotheses are especially useful if they include explanations for why a researcher might have been wrong (and researchers who ask significant questions in domains as complex as education are almost always wrong in some way). Depending on the ways in which the revised framework differs from the original, the authors have two options. If the revised framework is an expansion of the original, it would be appropriate for the authors to propose directions for future research that would extend this study. Alternatively, if the revised framework is still largely within the scope of the original study and consists of revisions to the original hypotheses, the revisions could guide a second study to check the adequacy of the revisions. This second study could be conducted by the same researchers (perhaps before the final manuscript is written and presented as two parts of the same report) or it could be proposed in the Discussion as a specific study that could be conducted by other researchers.

The second path is appropriate when researchers reexamine their theoretical framework in light of the unexpected findings and recognize serious flaws in the framework. The flaws could result from a number of factors, including defining elements of the framework in too general a way to formulate well-grounded hypotheses, failing to include a variable, or not accounting carefully enough for the previous work in this domain, both theoretical and empirical. In many of these cases, readers would not be well served by reading a poorly developed framework and then learning that the framework, which had not been convincing, did not accurately predict the results. Before scrapping the study and starting over, we suggest stepping back and reexamining the framework. Is it possible to develop a more coherent, complete, and convincing framework? Would this framework predict the results more accurately? If the findings remain unexpected based on the predictions generated by this revised, more compelling framework, then the first path applies.

It is likely that the new framework will better predict the findings. After all, the researchers now know the findings they will report. However, it is unlikely that the framework will accurately predict all the findings. This is because the framework is not built around the findings of this study of which authors are now aware (but have not yet been presented). Frameworks are built on research and theory already published. This means the redesigned framework is built from exactly the same empirical findings and theoretical arguments available before the study was conducted. The redesigned framework also is constrained by needing to justify exactly those methods used in the study. The redesigned framework cannot justify different methods or even slightly altered methods. The task for researchers is to show how the new theoretical framework necessarily generates, using the same methods, the predictions they present in the research paper. Just as before, it is unlikely this framework can account for all the findings. Just as before, after presenting the results the researchers should explain why they believe particular hypotheses were confirmed and why others should be revised, even in small ways, based on the findings reported. Researchers can now use these findings to revise the hypotheses presented in the paper. The point we are making is that we believe it is acceptable to reconstruct frameworks before writing research reports if doing so would be more educative for the reader.

Finally, the third path becomes appropriate when researchers, in reexamining their theoretical framework, trace the problem to a misalignment between the methods they used and the theoretical framework or the research questions. Perhaps the researchers recognize that the tasks they used did not yield data that could test the predictions and address the research questions. Or perhaps the researchers realize that the sample they selected would likely have been heavily influenced by a factor they failed to take into account. In other words, the researchers decide that the unexpected findings were due to a problem with the methods they used, not with the framework or the accompanying predictions. In this case, we recommend that the researchers correct the methodological problems and conduct the study again.

Part V. A Few Suggestions for Structuring Your Discussion Section

Writing the Discussion section of your research paper can be overwhelming given all our suggestions about what to include in this section. Here are a few tips that might help you create a simple template for this section.

We recommend the Discussion begin with a brief summary of the main results, especially those you will interpret in this section. This summary should not contain new data or results not previously presented in the paper.

The Discussion could then move to presenting the contributions in the ways we have described. To do this you could point out the ways in which the results differed from the predictions and suggest revisions to your rationales that would have better predicted the results. Doing this will show how the contributions of your study extend what is known beyond the research you drew on to build your original rationale. You can then propose how to extend your contributions to research by proposing future research studies that would test your new predictions. If you believe the revisions you make to your rationales produce new insights or understandings that could be helpful for educational practitioners, you can identify these contributions to practice as well. This comprises the bulk of the Discussion section.

If you have embedded the limitations in earlier sections of the paper, you will have presented your results and interpreted your findings constrained by these limitations. If you choose (or are asked) to describe limitations in the Discussion, you could identify the limitations and then point to the ways they affected your interpretations of the findings. Finally, the Discussion could conclude with the implications of the study for methodological choices that could improve research in the domain in which your study is located or how future studies could overcome the limitations you identified.

Because we are providing guidance on writing your research paper for publication, we will reiterate here that you should investigate the expectations and conventions of the journal to which you will submit your paper. Usually, it will be acceptable to use the terms “significance,” “contributions,” and “implications” as we have defined them. However, if the editors expect you to use the terms differently, follow the editors’ expectations. Our definitions in this chapter are meant to help you think clearly about the different ways you can make a case for the importance of your research. What matters is that you have carefully built and described a coherent chain of scientific inquiry that allows your study to translate the significance of your research problem into contributions to the field.

We began the chapter with the “So what?” question. The question looks simple and straightforward but is challenging and complicated. Its simple appearance can lead researchers to believe it should have a simple answer. But it almost never does. In this chapter, we tried to address the many complications that arise when answering the question. We hope you now have some new insights and new tools for answering the question in your next study.

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019a). Choosing and justifying robust methods for educational research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, G. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50 (8), 493–504.

Wang, G., Zhang, S., & Cai, J. (2021). How are parental expectations related to students’ beliefs and their perceived achievement? Educational Studies in Mathematics., 108 , 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10073-w

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). Significance of a Study: Revisiting the “So What” Question. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_5

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What is the importance of research in everyday life?

Chemotherapy. Browsing the internet. Predicting hurricanes and storms. What do these things have in common? For one, they all exhibit the importance of research in everyday life; we would not be able to do these today without preceding decades of trial and error. Here are three top reasons we recognise the importance of research in everyday life, and why it is such an integral part of higher education today.

Research increases the quality of life

According to Universities Canada , “Basic research has led to some of the most commercially successful and life-saving discoveries of the past century, including the laser, vaccines and drugs, and the development of radio and television.” Canadian universities, for example, are currently studying how technology can help breed healthier livestock, how dance can provide long-term benefits to people living with Parkinson’s, and how to tackle affordable student housing in Toronto.

We know now that modern problems require modern solutions. Research is a catalyst for solving the world’s most pressing issues, the complexity of which evolves over time. The entire wealth of research findings throughout history has led us to this very point in civilisation, which brings us to the next reason why research matters.

What does a university’s research prowess mean for you as a student? Source: Shutterstock

Research empowers us with knowledge

Though scientists carry out research, the rest of the world benefits from their findings. We get to know the way of nature, and how our actions affect it. We gain a deeper understanding of people, and why they do the things they do. Best of all, we get to enrich our lives with the latest knowledge of health, nutrition, technology, and business, among others.

On top of that, reading and keeping up with scientific findings sharpen our own analytical skills and judgment. It compels us to apply critical thinking and exercise objective judgment based on evidence, instead of opinions or rumours. All throughout this process, we are picking up new bits of information and establishing new neural connections, which keeps us alert and up-to-date.

Research drives progress forward

Thanks to scientific research, modern medicine can cure diseases like tuberculosis and malaria. We’ve been able to simplify vaccines, diagnosis, and treatment across the board. Even COVID-19 — a novel disease — could be studied based on what is known about the SARS coronavirus. Now, the vaccine Pfizer and BioNTech have been working on has proven 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection.

Mankind has charted such progress thanks to the scientific method. Beyond improving healthcare, it is also responsible for the evolution of technology, which in turn guides the development of almost every other industry in the automation age. The world is the way it is today because academics throughout history have relentlessly sought answers in their laboratories and faculties; our future depends on what we do with all this newfound information.

Popular stories

8 richest men in malaysia and how they made their billions, best money-making side hustles to earn you extra income in 2024, 5 types of visas for talented nigerians looking to live abroad, jobs in tech: 6 countries offering visas to skilled foreign graduates, international phd students now eligible for uk research and innovation scholarships, international scholars make lasting contributions to the us: report.

Fifty reasons Why research is important to students

Research is important for students because it helps them develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as gain a deeper understanding of a subject. It also helps them become independent learners and prepares them for future academic and professional endeavors. Additionally, research can also foster creativity and innovation, and can lead to new discoveries and advancements in various fields.

• Helps students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills
• Allows students to explore and gain a deeper understanding of a subject
• Provides students with the opportunity to make new discoveries and contributions to their field of study
• Enhances students’ ability to analyze and interpret data
• Encourages students to be curious and ask questions
• Helps students develop strong research and writing skills
• Allows students to gain practical experience in their field of study
• Helps students understand the scientific method and the process of experimentation
• Allows students to develop a sense of independence and self-motivation
• Helps students to gain confidence in their abilities
• Enables students to learn how to work in teams
• Allows students to conduct original research and contribute to the advancement of knowledge
• Helps students to develop expertise in a specific area
• Enhances students’ job and career prospects
• Allows students to participate in undergraduate research programs
• Helps students to develop a sense of responsibility and ethics
• Allows students to gain hands-on experience in their field of study
• Helps students to develop time management and organization skills
• Allows students to gain experience in data analysis and interpretation
• Helps students to understand the importance of replication and reproducibility in research
• Allows students to gain experience in statistical analysis
• Helps students to understand the importance of literature review and citation
• Allows students to gain experience in project management
• Helps students to understand the importance of research design and methodology
• Allows students to gain experience in writing scientific papers and reports
• Helps students to understand the importance of research ethics and integrity
• Allows students to gain experience in presenting research findings
• Helps students to develop a sense of scientific curiosity and wonder
• Allows students to gain experience in lab techniques and equipment
• Allows students to gain experience in data management and organization
• Helps students to develop a sense of creativity and innovation
• Allows students to gain experience in interdisciplinary research
• Helps students to understand the importance of collaboration and networking
• Allows students to gain experience in grant writing
• Helps students to understand the importance of research dissemination and communication
• Allows students to gain experience in working with human subjects
• Helps students to understand the importance of research funding and resources
• Allows students to gain experience in using technology and software for research
• Helps students to understand the importance of research impact and societal relevance
• Allows students to gain experience in working with diverse populations
• Helps students to understand the importance of research policy and advocacy
• Allows students to gain experience in working in international and global contexts
• Helps students to understand the importance of research sustainability and scalability
• Allows students to gain experience in working in industry and government
• Helps students to understand the importance of research regulation and compliance
• Allows students to gain experience in mentoring and supervising others
• Helps students to understand the importance of research evaluation and assessment
• Allows students to gain experience in working with non-academic partners
• Helps students to understand the importance of research as a lifelong learning process

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

No Comments Yet

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

What If We’re Telling the Wrong Story about Climate Change?

Chika Okafor’s research merges economics with educational psychology to understand how the methods we use to communicate about important issues influence public action.

In recent years, the news has been filled with a seemingly endless stream of articles about the negative effects of climate change: extreme temperatures, flooding, increasingly destructive hurricanes and earthquakes, lost crops, and much more. Engaging with this influx of negative material can be intimidating and demoralizing. It can even lead to the impression that the climate crisis is just too big of a problem to solve and that, therefore, it’s not worth trying.

Repeated exposure to disaster coverage may also lead to “ crisis fatigue ,” a burnout response to prolonged stress resulting from difficult situations. This phenomenon has been well-documented with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic , and researchers have also linked it to climate change. Over time, those experiencing crisis fatigue can develop psychological trauma . So what can we do differently?

According to Chika Okafor, the 2023–2024 Edna Newman Shapiro, Class of 1936, and Robert Newman Shapiro, Class of 1972, Graduate Student Fellow at Harvard Radcliffe Institute, climate disaster stories employ what’s called a “deficit-based approach” to communication, which might be problematic when it comes to mobilizing support to fight climate change.

Educational psychology, a field of study that is often drawn on in the context of teaching students who come from challenging backgrounds, defines two different approaches to instruction: the deficit-based approach and the asset-based approach. In basic terms, the deficit-based approach emphasizes the problems that students are facing, while the asset-based approach focuses on students’ strengths and the opportunities available to them. Imagine your teacher says to you, “If you fail this exam, you won’t be able to get into college.” How does that make you feel? Now imagine she says, instead, “If you pass this exam, you’ll have a better chance of getting into your dream school.”

The problem with the deficit-based approach, says Okafor—who is also the inaugural fellow in law and political economy at Harvard Law School and a PhD candidate in Harvard’s Department of Economics—is it can create a “self-fulfilling prophecy, where students may not elevate beyond the lowered expectations of their instructors.” In contrast, educational psychology researchers have shown that an asset-based approach can be used to enable students to overcome the barriers they face.

Okafor was born and raised in Chicago, the son of two Nigerian immigrants and the youngest of four children. Growing up, Okafor’s father instilled in him the idea that “education is arming yourself to the teeth.” Education allowed his father to escape extreme poverty in southeastern Nigeria, immigrate to the United States, and raise his family there.

Photo by Tony Rinaldo

After college (and a brief stint in consulting), Okafor returned to Chicago to work in the public school system. He recalls roaming the halls of Paul Robeson High School, in the South Side of Chicago, and thinking that, in some ways, the school resembled a prison—police cars remained permanently parked outside, metal grates were used to control the flow of adolescents, and a police chopper hovered overhead while students were released at the end of the school day.

For Okafor, the experience was so impactful that he decided to continue arming himself, first by enrolling at Yale Law School and then in Harvard’s economics PhD program. He saw law and economics as two powerful means to make progress on some of the complex social and economic issues he had witnessed play out at Robeson and elsewhere.

Okafor’s doctoral project is expansive and ambitious, addressing several major social and economic problems, including economic inequality, rising incarceration rates, and, of course, climate change. What unites these disparate chapters is the application of economic theory and experimental methods, along with econometric techniques, to better understand important issues.

Okafor chose climate change for the third and final chapter, and the focus of his time at Radcliffe, because it’s “the 800-pound gorilla in the room that will make just about every index of inequality wider and significantly impact the people who are already most vulnerable in our society.”

One of the challenges of addressing climate change, Okafor notes, is its complexity. Video produced by Alan C. Grazioso/Harvard Radcliffe Institute

Drawing on lessons learned from working in education, and inspired by the New York Times interactive children’s guide “ Bad Future, Better Future ,” Okafor designed an experiment to test the public’s response to deficit-based and asset-based approaches to instructional materials.

First, he worked with a multimedia design team to develop two versions of an educational video on climate change: one that relies on a deficit-based approach and one that relies on an asset-based approach. Next, Okafor devised a survey to record respondents’ reactions upon exposure to either the deficit-based video, the asset-based video, or both, and he administered it to 2,500 participants across the United States.

Okafor is currently in the process of collecting and analyzing the survey results, which he will use to assess the videos’ impact on climate change beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Through the surveys, he also collected data on demographic characteristics such as race, gender, and income—data which he hopes will shed light on the extent to which these characteristics might influence ideas and behaviors regarding climate change.

“What I’m trying to see in my research is if there is a different way of talking about climate change that could have a much greater impact on generating the amount of public support that is required to mitigate the worst effects,” says Okafor.

Following his line of reasoning, we must question our approaches to talking and writing about climate change if we want to maximize the impact of our words. What if we were to shift the focus of our climate-related reporting toward a more solution-oriented perspective? What implications would this shift in communication strategy have as far as motivating public action?

Importantly, deploying an asset-based approach does not necessitate minimizing hardship. The point is not to gloss over or obscure challenges but, rather, to acknowledge them and figure out how to address them.

In the context of news reporting, this might look like increasing the number of stories about how to reduce environmental degradation, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate the consequences of climate change, without reducing the level of coverage on climate disasters. Disaster stories are important insofar as they elicit an emotional response and underscore the importance of taking action. But they don’t tell us how to act, which can lead to a sense of helplessness.

We might also add sections with possible solutions to stories about climate-related issues. There are many approaches, but the key is to emphasize opportunities for progress, to avoid painting a picture of such doom that our audience simply gives up and tunes out.

That education is a powerful tool may be a truism, but Okafor’s story bears it out. “When I was growing up, I thought that arming yourself to the teeth meant doing so for yourself, to escape or stave off poverty or unequal opportunities, or to shore up financial security” he reflects. “But through this journey toward a PhD, I more deeply understand the extent to which education can be arming yourself in service of others, particularly those who are most vulnerable.”

Sam Zuniga-Levy is a writer at Harvard Radcliffe Institute .

News & Ideas

Episode 208: Kindness—It’s Good for You!

Episode 207: Let’s Talk about Climate Resilience

Episode 206: Tackling Environmental Inequality across Academic Disciplines

Student Spotlight: Chassidy Winestock PhD ’24

The Sounds of Change

Episode 205: A Conversation with Ruth J. Simmons

Episode 204: Math—It’s Not Just Numbers

Students Gather Data On Campus Squirrels As Part Of Urban Wildlife Research Effort

A longtime favorite of students and frequent subject of fascination across social media , Texas A&M University’s sizeable campus squirrel population is getting even more time in the spotlight this year as student researchers seek to learn more about the animals’ behaviors.

Beginning this month, students in the  Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences   Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management (RWFM) will use various field techniques and statistical analyses to provide quantitative insight into the world of these bushy-tailed campus rodents.

Campus Wildlife Provides Unique Learning Opportunities

Of the eight squirrel species that call Texas home, the highly adaptable Eastern fox squirrel has seemingly found its niche in the open, park-like environments of universities across much of the state. With a variety of habitat options, an abundant food supply, and relatively few predators, it’s no surprise that these campus squirrels flourish.

Dr. Ty Werdel, RWFM assistant professor, said this provides the perfect opportunity to integrate accessible, field-based monitoring with academic coursework.

“The presence of urban wildlife on campus enables our students to conduct research and practice key technical skills in their own backyard,” Werdel said.

Project Launches This Spring

Led by Werdel and RWFM graduate students, undergraduates enrolled in Techniques in Wildlife Management will set traps located in trees to capture 12 squirrels across campus. Once the animals are captured, students will collect data such as sex and weight and equip the squirrels with micro-GPS collars.

Werdel said these GPS collars, like very small pet collars, have no detrimental effect on the daily activities of the wildlife wearing them and will provide researchers with fine-scale spatial insight into their movement and behavior.

To mitigate stress on the animal and ensure human safety, only trained personnel will be allowed to handle the squirrels; however, wildlife students will assist in the process. Further, the trapping will take place only in the early morning or late evening hours to avoid the hottest portions of the day.

“It’s important for us to ensure this process results in the least amount of stress possible for the squirrels,” Werdel said. “Prior to even starting this work, we obtained a research permit from the  Texas Parks and Wildlife Department  and approval from the  Texas A&M Division of Research  Animal Use Protocol.”

Information Collected Sheds Light On The Campus Squirrels

In addition to monitoring general movement patterns, the GPS collars, other survey methods and statistical modeling will enable students enrolled in two additional undergraduate courses — Wildlife Population Dynamics and Urban Wildlife and Fisheries — to determine the campus squirrel population, as well as home ranges and habitat preferences across the landscape.

For example, thanks to an existing geographic information system, GIS, database of campus trees, along with data on building density and roads, students can correlate squirrel activity and density with particular landscape features. This helps researchers better understand which campus elements squirrels most prefer or avoid.

Further, students will monitor and assess squirrel mortality, locate and monitor nesting dens, and estimate squirrel populations on campus based on surveys.

“This project will enable students to learn and implement an array of basic wildlife techniques including radio telemetry, census methodology, trapping, GIS and statistical analyses,” Werdel said. “Beyond gaining an understanding of the population dynamics of urban squirrels, this project is really about equipping our students with the skills needed to successfully enter the career field of wildlife management.”

Building On Existing Campus Data

This isn’t the first time Texas A&M students have investigated the behavior of campus squirrels. Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Roel Lopez, head of the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management and director of the  Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute , launched a similar project.

“At the time, urban squirrels had never been studied in Texas and had rarely been studied in the U.S.,” said Lopez, then an assistant professor.

This project spanned six years and led to numerous findings, including that male squirrels on the Texas A&M campus are more likely to die from  highway-related deaths  than females.

Department faculty were able to revive this project thanks in part to financial support from an alumnus of Texas A&M’s wildlife program.

“College Station and the Texas A&M campus have urbanized and changed drastically since the initial study,” Lopez said. “This will provide an amazing opportunity to see if these changes have affected how these animals use the landscape.”

Werdel said understanding the impact of urbanization on all wildlife species is extremely relevant as cities continue their outward expansion and overlap with wildlife habitat.

“The project’s primary objective is to prepare our students with the technical knowledge and skills needed to conserve and manage any number of wildlife species in an evolving environment,” Werdel said. “While this research is specific to our campus, students will be able to apply what they learn through this project to future wildlife management endeavors.”

This article by Sarah Fuller originally appeared on AgriLife Today .

Related Stories

Two Students Honored With Aggie Ring Handoff By US Marine Corps Commandant At The Pentagon

Susan Liu ’26 and Lee Thornton ’25 accepted their Aggie gold in the nation’s capital from Gen. Eric Smith, a Texas A&M graduate.

Texas A&M AgriLife Turfgrass Program Leads Through Innovation

From backyards to football fields and golf courses, science is reshaping the turfgrass experience.

From Coffee Bean To Coffee Cup

On a recent study abroad trip, Texas A&M students got a firsthand look at coffee production in Costa Rica.

Recent Stories

New Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Stations Installed On Texas A&M Campus

The DC fast chargers are available for public use in Lot 47.

Texas MS 150 Bike Tour Returns To Aggieland

The annual charity ride will conclude on the Texas A&M campus on April 28. Learn more about road closures, parking and where to watch.

Sixth Annual Aggie PITCH Awards McFerrin Cup, Cash Prizes

Twenty Aggie-led startups competed in the only university-wide business pitch competition.

Subscribe to the Texas A&M Today newsletter for the latest news and stories every week.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Assessing the effect of augmented reality (ar) on english language learning and student motivation in secondary education provisionally accepted.

• 1 Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Spain
• 2 University of Alicante, Spain

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

The integration of Augmented Reality (AR) in language learning has garnered attention in the field of education, yet its effectiveness in enhancing grammar proficiency among secondary school students remains relatively unexplored, especially given that previous research has predominantly focused on vocabulary acquisition at the primary and college levels. This study, based on a mixed-methods approach and convenience sampling, is aimed at assessing students' attitudes toward the integration of technology (H1) in language learning and examining the impact of using AR on grammar learning (H2) and motivation (H3) among secondary education students. Employing a mixed-method approach and convenience sampling, the research involved 130 students aged 14 to 15 from two secondary schools, divided into an experimental group (n=64) and a control group (n=66). Both groups received instruction on English comparative and superlative forms and completed a variety of exercises. The control group followed a traditional approach using a printed handbook, while the experimental group engaged with an AR-based lesson containing equivalent grammar activities and vocabulary in a multimedia format. Pre and post-tests were administered to evaluate grammar proficiency, accompanied by pre and post-surveys. Semi-structured discussion was used for the qualitative data. The findings revealed a strong interest in integrating AR technology into grammar learning, underscored by a positive attitude toward its implementation in secondary education. However, no statistically significant differences were detected in grammar learning performance between the two student groups. These findings emphasize the importance of providing proper teacher training in secondary education to effectively utilize AR technology and highlight the need for further research to explore its effectiveness and long-term impact. world environment to enhance the user's perception of reality. The prevalence of Software Development Kits (SDKs) such as ZapWorks, Roar, Augment, and ARkit Unity is steadily rising within various educational settings. These SDKs are employed to provide students with immersive experiences and enhance their performance, engagement, and motivation.

Keywords: augmented reality, language learning, grammar, Motivation, Secondary education

Received: 21 Dec 2023; Accepted: 25 Apr 2024.

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

* Correspondence: Dr. Jose Belda-Medina, University of Alicante, Alicante, 03690, Valencian Community, Spain

People also looked at

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program honors nine Chemistry student community members

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (4/26/2023) – Nine members of the Department of Chemistry student community were recently honored with recognition by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP). Briana Krupinsky, Grace Murphy, Timmy Nguyen, and Ulises Perez were awarded fellowships, and Mrinalni Iyer, Killian MacFeely, Wallee Naimi, Miles Willis, and Ali Younis received honorable mentions.

Briana Krupinsky is a second-year graduate student in the Lamb group . She joined the UMN community after completing her undergraduate studies at the University of North Dakota. Briana investigates N-hetereocyclic carbene-carbodiimide (NHC-CDI) adducts for application as catalyst precursors in organocatalysis. At the moment, this includes working towards understanding the thermodynamic and kinetic properties of NHC-CDI adducts for well-controlled catalysis. One of Briana’s research goals is to develop a light-activated NHC-CDI catalyst precursor to achieve spatiotemporal control for the synthesis of polymers.

Grace Murphy , a member of the Hoover lab , came to UMN after completing her undergraduate studies at Saint Louis University. One of her long-term goals as a chemist is to study and develop transition metal catalyzed reactions that are used in organic chemistry. She is particularly interested in understanding the structure-reactivity relationships that make difficult reactions possible. Grace is currently working towards understanding the mechanism of nickel catalyzed/mediated decarbonylation, a reaction that has potential future applications to the synthesis of pharmaceuticals to polymer upcycling.

Timmy Nguyen first came to UMN for a summer research experience program in 2022, right before his senior year at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He officially joined the graduate program in 2023 as a member of the Haynes group. Timmy is interested in anisotropic nanoparticles as substrates and recently started working on a project to synthesize silica-coated gold nanorods for use in SERS sensors. He is also passionate about participating in outreach activities through Science for All, a student group that works to bring the excitement of science to Minnesota middle schools.

Ulises Perez , a Spring 2023 graduate from the UMN Chemistry undergraduate program and current PhD student at University of Washington, was also awarded a fellowship.

The NSF GRFP recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees at accredited United States institutions. The program also seeks to support the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM graduate studies.

Mrinalni Iyer, Killian MacFeely, Wallee Naimi, Miles Willis, and Ali Younis received honorable mentions for their applications. The Department of Chemistry congratulates all nine students on this significant national academic achievement!

Related news releases

• Kargbo, Pham, and Tuga receive Merck Underrepresented Chemists of Color Research Award
• Taimeng Liang awarded ACS Division of Medicinal Chemistry Predoctoral Fellowship
• Manuraj Kallumkal and Pete Gabriel Ledesma receive Pothapragada International Graduate Student Fellowship
• PhD candidate Casey Ritts receives American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowship
• PhD students recognized with awards and honors at Fall Kickoff Seminar
• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other

Many learn about ancestors, u.s. black history from family, table of contents.

• The importance of being Black for connections with other Black people
• The importance of Blackness for knowing family history and U.S. Black history
• Younger Black people are less likely to speak to relatives about ancestors
• Black Americans differ by party on measures of identity and connection
• The importance of race, ancestry and place to personal identity
• The importance of gender and sexuality to personal identity
• Black Americans and connectedness to other Black people
• Intra-racial connections locally, nationally and globally
• How Black Americans learn about their family history
• Most Black adults say their ancestors were enslaved, but some are not sure
• Most Black adults are at least somewhat informed about U.S. Black history
• For many Black adults, where they live shapes how they think about themselves
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the rich diversity of Black people in the United States and their views of Black identity. This in-depth, robust survey explores differences among Black Americans in views of identity such as between U.S.-born Black people and Black immigrants; Black people living in different regions of the country; and between Black people of different ethnicities, political party affiliations, ages and income levels. The analysis is the latest in the Center’s series of in-depth surveys of public opinion among Black Americans (read the first, “ Faith Among Black Americans ”).

The online survey of 3,912 Black U.S. adults was conducted Oct. 4-17, 2021. The survey includes 1,025 Black adults on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 2,887 Black adults on Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. Black adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). Here are the questions used for the survey of Black adults , along with its responses and methodology .

The terms “Black Americans” , “Black people” and “Black adults” are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Black, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Throughout this report, “Black, non-Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as single-race Black and say they have no Hispanic background. “Black Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as Black and say they have Hispanic background. We use the terms “Black Hispanic” and “Hispanic Black” interchangeably. “Multiracial” respondents are those who indicate two or more racial backgrounds (one of which is Black) and say they are not Hispanic.

Respondents were asked a question about how important being Black was to how they think about themselves. In this report, we use the terms “being Black” and “Blackness” interchangeably when referencing responses to this question.

In this report, “immigrant” refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. We use the terms “immigrant” and “foreign-born” interchangeably.

Throughout this report, “Democrat and Democratic leaners” refers to respondents who say in they identify politically with the Democratic Party or are independent but lean toward the Democratic Party. “ Republican and Republican leaners” refers to respondents who identify politically with the Republican Party or are independent but lean toward the Republican Party.

To create the upper-, middle- and lower-income tiers, respondents’ 2020 family incomes were adjusted for differences in purchasing power by geographic region and household size. Respondents were then placed into income tiers: “Middle income” is defined as two-thirds to double the median annual income for the entire survey sample. “Lower income” falls below that range, and “upper income” lies above it. For more information about how the income tiers were created, read the methodology .

No matter where they are from, who they are, their economic circumstances or educational backgrounds, significant majorities of Black Americans say being Black is extremely or very important to how they think about themselves, with about three-quarters (76%) overall saying so.   

A significant share of Black Americans also say that when something happens to Black people in their local communities, across the nation or around the globe, it affects what happens in their own lives, highlighting a sense of connectedness. Black Americans say this even as they have diverse experiences and come from an array of backgrounds.

Even so, Black adults who say being Black is important to their sense of self are more likely than other Black adults to feel connected to other groups of Black people. They are also more likely to feel that what happens to Black people inside and outside the United States affects what happens in their own lives. These findings emerge from an extensive new survey of Black U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center.

A majority of non-Hispanic Black Americans (78%) say being Black is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. This racial group is the largest among Black adults , accounting for 87% of the adult population, according to 2019 Census Bureau estimates. But among other Black Americans, roughly six-in-ten multiracial (57%) and Hispanic (58%) Black adults say this.

Black Americans also differ in key ways in their views about the importance of being Black to personal identity. While majorities of all age groups of Black people say being Black shapes how they think about themselves, younger Black Americans are less likely to say this – Black adults ages 50 and older are more likely than Black adults ages 18 to 29 to say that being Black is very or extremely important to how they think of themselves. Specifically, 76% of Black adults ages 30 to 49, 80% of those 50 to 64 and 83% of those 65 and older hold this view, while only 63% of those under 30 do.

Black adults who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely than those who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party to say being Black is important to how they see themselves – 86% vs. 58%. And Black women (80%) are more likely than Black men (72%) to say being Black is important to how they see themselves.

Still, some subgroups of Black Americans are about as likely as others to say that being Black is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. For example, U.S.-born and immigrant Black adults are about as likely to say being Black is important to how they see their identity. However, not all Black Americans feel the same about the importance of being Black to their identity – 14% say it is only somewhat important to how they see themselves while 9% say it has little or no impact on their personal identity, reflecting the diversity of views about identity among Black Americans.

Beyond the personal importance of Blackness – that is, the importance of being Black to personal identity – many Black Americans feel connected to each other. About five-in-ten (52%) say everything or most things that happen to Black people in the United States affect what happens in their own lives, with another 30% saying some things that happen nationally to Black people have a personal impact. And 43% say all or most things that happen to Black people in their local community affect what happens in their own lives, while another 35% say only some things in their lives are affected by these events. About four-in-ten Black adults in the U.S. (41%) say they feel their fates are strongly linked to Black people around the world, with 36% indicating that some things that happen to Black people around the world affect what happens in their own lives.

The survey also asked respondents how much they have in common with different groups of Black Americans. Some 17% of Black adults say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are immigrants. But this sense of commonality differs sharply by nativity: 14% of U.S.-born Black adults say they have everything or most things in common with Black immigrants, while 43% of Black immigrants say the same. Conversely, only about one-in-four Black immigrants (26%) say they have everything or most things in common with U.S.-born Black people, a share that rises to 56% among U.S.-born Black people themselves.

About one-third of Black Americans (34%) say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are poor, though smaller shares say the same about Black people who are wealthy (12%). Relatively few Black Americans (14%) say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ). However, a larger share of Black Americans (25%) say they have at least some things in common with Black people who identify as LGBTQ. All these findings highlight the diversity of the U.S. Black population and how much Black people feel connected to each other.

These are among the key findings from a recent Pew Research Center survey of 3,912 Black Americans conducted online Oct. 4-17, 2021. This report is the latest in a series of Pew Research Center studies focused on describing the rich diversity of Black people in the United States.

The nation’s Black population stood at 47 million in 2020 , making up 14% of the U.S. population – up from 13% in 2000. While the vast majority of Black Americans say their racial background is Black alone (88% in 2020), growing numbers are also multiracial or Hispanic. Most were born in the U.S. and trace their roots back several generations in the country, but a growing share are immigrants (12%) or the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents (9%). Geographically, while 56% of Black Americans live in the nation’s South , the national Black population has also dispersed widely across the country.

It is this diversity – among U.S.-born Black people and Black immigrants; between Black people who live in different regions; and across different ethnicities, party affiliations, ages and income levels – that this report explores. The survey also provides a robust opportunity to examine the importance of race to Black Americans’ sense of self and their connections to other Black people.

The importance of being Black to personal identity is a significant factor in how connected Black Americans feel toward each other. Those who say that being Black is a very or extremely important part of their personal identity are more likely than those for whom Blackness is relatively less important to express a sense of common fate with Black people in their local communities (50% vs. 17%), in the United States overall (62% vs. 21%), and even around the world (48% vs. 18%).

They are also more likely to say that they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are poor (37% vs. 23%) and Black immigrants (19% vs. 9%). Even so, fewer than half of Black Americans, no matter how important Blackness is to their personal identity, say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are poor, immigrants or LGBTQ.

The new survey also explores Black Americans’ knowledge about their family histories and the history of Black people in the United States, with the importance of Blackness linked to greater knowledge. 

Nearly six-in-ten Black adults (57%) say their ancestors were enslaved either in the U.S. or another country, with nearly all who say so (52% of the Black adults surveyed) saying it was in the U.S., either in whole or in part. Black adults who say that being Black is a very or extremely important part of how they see themselves (61%) are more likely than those for whom being Black is less important (45%) to say that their ancestors were enslaved. In fact, Black adults for whom Blackness is very or extremely important (31%) are less likely than their counterparts (42%) to say that they are not sure if their ancestors were enslaved at all.

When it comes to learning more about their family histories, Black adults for whom Blackness is very or extremely important (81%) are more likely than those for whom Blackness is less important (59%) to have spoken to their relatives. They are about as likely to have researched their family’s history online (36% and 30%, respectively) and to have used a mail-in DNA service such as AncestryDNA or 23andMe (15% and 16%) to learn more about their ancestry.

The importance of Blackness also figures prominently into how informed Black Americans feel about U.S. Black history. Black adults who say Blackness is a significant part of their personal identity are more likely than those for whom Blackness is less important to say that they feel very or extremely informed about U.S. Black history (57% vs. 29%). Overall, about half of Black Americans say they feel very or extremely informed about the history of Black people in the United States.

Among Black adults who feel at least a little informed about U.S. Black history, the sources of their knowledge also differ by the importance of Blackness to personal identity. Nearly half of Black adults for whom Blackness is very or extremely important (48%) say they learned about Black history from their families and friends, making them more likely to say so than Black adults for whom Blackness is less important (30%). Similarly, those who say being Black is important to their identity are more likely than those who did not say this to have learned about Black history from nearly every source they were asked about, be it media (33% vs. 22%), the internet (30% vs. 18%) or college, if they attended (26% vs. 14%). The only source for which both groups were about equally likely to say they learned about Black history was their K-12 schools (24% and 21%, respectively).

Overall, among Black Americans who feel at least a little informed about U.S. Black history, 43% say they learned about it from their relatives and friends, 30% say they learned about it from the media, 27% from the internet, and 24% from college (if they attended) and 23% from K-12 school.

Black adults under 30 years old differ significantly from older Black adults in their views on the importance of Blackness to their personal identity. However, Black adults also differ by age in how they pursue knowledge of family history, how informed they feel about U.S. Black history, and their sense of connectedness to other Black people.

Black adults under 30 (50%) are less likely than those 65 and older (64%) to say their ancestors were enslaved. In fact, 40% of Black adults under 30 say that they are not sure whether their ancestors were enslaved. Black adults in the youngest age group (59%) are less likely than the oldest (87%) to have spoken to their relatives about family history or to have used a mail-in DNA service to learn about their ancestors (11% vs. 21%). They are only slightly less likely to have conducted research on their families online (26% vs. 39%).

Black adults under 30 have the lowest share who say they feel very or extremely informed about the history of Black people in the United States (40%), compared with 60% of Black adults 65 and older and about half each of Black adults 50 to 64 (53%) and 30 to 49 (51%). In fact, Black adults under 30 are more likely than those 50 and older to say they feel a little or not at all informed about Black history. While Black adults are generally most likely to cite family and friends as their source for learning about Black history, the share under 30 (38%) who also cite the internet as a source of information is higher than the shares ages 50 to 64 (22%) and 65 and older (14%) who say this.

These age differences persist in the sense of connectedness that Black Americans have with other Black people. Black adults under 30 are less likely than those 65 and older to say that everything or most things that happen to Black people in the United States will affect their own lives. This youngest group is also less likely than the oldest to have this sense of common fate with Black people in their local community. One exception to this pattern occurs when Black adults were asked how much they had in common with Black people who identify as LGBTQ. Black adults under 30 (21%) were considerably more likely than those 65 and older (10%) to say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who identify as LGBTQ.

Black Democrats and Republicans differ on how important Blackness is to their personal identities. However, there are also partisan gaps when it comes to their connectedness to other Black people. 1

Black Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are more likely than Black Republicans and Republican leaners to say that everything or most things that happen to Black people in the United States (57% vs. 39%) and their local communities (46% vs. 30%) affect what happens in their own lives. However, Black Republicans (24%) are more likely than Black Democrats (14%) to say that they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are LGBTQ. They are also more likely than Black Democrats to say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are wealthy (25% vs. 11%).

When it comes to knowledge of family and racial histories, Black Democrats and Republicans do not differ. Democrats (59%) are just as likely as Republicans (54%) to know that their ancestors were enslaved. Nearly 80% of Black adults from both partisan coalitions say they have spoken to their relatives about their family history. Similar shares have also researched their family histories online and used mail-in DNA services.

Black Democrats are also not significantly more likely than Black Republicans to say they feel very or extremely informed about U.S. Black history (53% vs. 45%). And among those who feel at least a little informed about U.S. Black history, Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to say they learned it from family and friends (45% vs. 38%).

Place is a key part of Black Americans’ personal identities

The majority of Black adults who live in the United States were born there, but an increasing portion of the population is comprised of immigrants. Of those immigrants, nearly 90% were born in the Caribbean or Africa . Regardless of their region of birth, 58% of Black adults say the country they were born in is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. A smaller share say the same about the places where they grew up (46%).

Black adults also feel strongly about their current communities. About half of Black adults (52%) say that where they currently live is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. And when it comes to the quality of their neighborhoods, 76% of Black adults rate them as at least good places to live, including 41% who say the quality of their community is very good or excellent.

Still, Black adults say there are concerning issues in the communities they live in. When asked in an open-ended question to list the issue that was most important in their neighborhoods, nearly one-in-five Black adults listed issues related to violence or crime (17%). Smaller shares listed other points of concern such as economic issues like poverty and homelessness (11%), housing (7%), COVID-19 and public health (6%), or infrastructure issues such as the availability of public transportation and the conditions of roads (5%).

While nearly one-in-five Black Americans (17%) say that individual people like themselves should be responsible for solving these problems, they are most likely to say that local community leaders should address these issues (48%). Smaller shares say the U.S. Congress (12%), the U.S. president (8%) or civil rights organizations (2%) bear responsibility.

• According to the survey, 80% of Black adults say they identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, 10% say the same of the Republican Party and 10% did not answer the question or indicated that they did not affiliate with either party. Among Black registered voters, the survey finds 85% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, 10% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party and 5% did not answer the question or indicated that they did not affiliate with either party. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Black Americans
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Racial & Ethnic Identity
• Rural, Urban and Suburban Communities

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 97

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Enhancing research and scholarly experiences based on students’ awareness and perception of the research-teaching nexus: A student-centred approach

Katherine howell.

School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper.

Research is a core competency of a modern-day doctor and evidence-based practice underpins a career in medicine. Early exposure encourages graduates to embed research in their medical career and improves graduate attributes and student experience. However, there is wide variability of research and scholarly experiences offered in medicals schools, many developed with a significant degree of pragmatism based on resources and financial and time constraints. We examined undergraduate medical students’ awareness and experience of research throughout their degree to provide recommendations for implementation and improvement of research and scholarly experiences.

Focus groups were conducted with medical students at all five stages of the medical degree programme. Data was coded to facilitate qualitative analysis for identification of important themes from each stage.

Students reported positive impacts of research on undergraduate experience, future career and society in general. Two important themes emerged from the data, the opportunity for research and timing of research experiences. Early-stage students were concerned by their lack of experience and opportunity, whereas later-stage students identified the importance of research to employability, personal development and good medical practice, but ironically suggested it should be integrated in early stages of the course due to limitations of time.

Conclusions

Students provided feedback for improving research and scholarly experiences, ideally involving early exposure, a clear programme overview, with equality of access and a longitudinal approach. An emerging framework is proposed summarising the important issues identified by students and the positive impacts research experiences provide for them. These recommendations can be applied to both existing and new research programmes to provide a student-centred approach designed to augment the students’ critical analysis, inspire life-long learning, enhance the student experience and inevitably train better physicians.

Introduction

The question of how a research-intensive university can integrate and embed research into the curriculum to enhance student learning and improve graduate attributes is a topic of immense importance. The Boyer Commission Report—Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities (1998) stimulated debate about the nature of an undergraduate student’s experience at a research university. The value of research in education has been further emphasised in recent Irish reports such as the Hunt report in 2011 (National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030—Report of the Strategy Group). This report highlighted the intimate relationship between research and teaching, and strongly encouraged the integration of research-led teaching in Irish universities at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

This research-teaching nexus is particularly relevant in professions such as medicine, where evidence-based practice is essential for enhancing quality of patient care [ 1 – 3 ], however, a diminishing clinical scientist cohort interested in pursuing a career in academic medicine has been observed [ 4 , 5 ]. The clinical scientist is widely viewed as playing a critical role in medical research [ 6 ]. Consequently, this disquieting situation has prompted the implementation of a number of initiatives including the development of a specific Academic Track scheme for medical internships in Ireland, which began in 2017 (Health Services Executive National Doctors Training and Planning Unit). This programme enables medical interns to undertake a fully supported research project with protected time in the areas of medical education, clinical research or healthcare leadership and management, to encourage an increase in clinical scientist numbers.

Although the new academic intern programme has not been fully evaluated, a review of late stage undergraduate medical students in another Irish university, revealed their significant concerns that lack of prior undergraduate research may hinder their ability to be competitive in this programme [ 7 ] and over half of students did not think their application would be successful. The impact of early research opportunities during undergraduate medical training strongly encourages doctors to pursue a career embedded in research [ 8 , 9 ]. Furthermore, exposure of undergraduate students to research opportunities has been suggested to enhance effective student engagement [ 10 ] and encourage deeper learning [ 11 ]. Immersing students in a research-intensive setting improves disciplinary learning, and inculcates both discipline-specific and more generic research skills in graduates. These extensive skills are key for enhancing employability and for the ability to adapt to complexity and rapid change in modern knowledge-based economies.

Research is currently not compulsory for medical licensure, although universities should encourage students to engage in scholarship throughout their degree programme. Consequently, most medical schools are choosing to implement a range of research and scholarship components into their curriculum [ 12 , 13 ]. Although some elements of these scholarship or research programmes are consistent across medical schools, the specific format, content and delivery appear unique to each institution with limited cohesion at a national or global level. Components may be compulsory or optional, delivered in self-contained units of varying length, at different stages of the degree or in some cases longitudinally throughout the curriculum [ 12 , 13 ]. The establishment of such programmes within medical schools, is likely based on a range of pragmatic considerations such as resources, availability of mentors and time constraints, rather than a thorough evaluation or understanding of whether they genuinely meet the needs of students, whether they have a tangible impact on career pathways, or whether they ultimately enhance patient care [ 12 – 14 ]. Proposals for implementation and developing longitudinal scholarly experience projects have concentrated on the logistical difficulties and practical considerations rather than necessarily the needs of the students [ 14 ] and most programmes have not been appropriately evaluated to assess the impact they have [ 15 ].

Despite the consensus of the value of embedding research and scholarship into education, there is limited information from specific evaluation of Research-Teaching linkages in the medical curriculum, Given that delivery of these scholarly experiences varies enormously between institutions, there is little direct evidence evaluating the impact of implementing such diverse approaches [ 15 , 16 ]. Therefore a thorough understanding of the needs of the students is an important consideration when planning to implement successful programmes with tangible long-term benefits.

In this study, the student perspective is evaluated in University College Dublin (UCD) a large research-intensive university, which has defined a commitment to student-focused, ‘research-led’ education in a community based on strong research-intensive disciplines. UCD Medical School provides a 6-year undergraduate medicine programme with an intake of approximately 240 students per year, including up to 70 affiliated with Penang Medical College (PMC). The programme also includes other international students (E.U. and non-E.U.), who complete the full 6-year programme in UCD, and may remain in Ireland for subsequent employment and training. The undergraduate 6-year course includes five stages; Stage 5 incorporates the final two years of clinical training in the UCD network of teaching hospitals. UCD medical school also offers a 4-year Graduate Entry Medicine (GEM) course with over 120 students in each of the 4 stages, bringing the total number of full-time medical students to over 2000.

There is no compulsory substantial research project embedded in the undergraduate medical programme, however medical students can take an optional 8-week research elective module in the summer trimester at any stage, known as Summer Student Research Awards (SSRA). These research experiences can be taken as a module for 5 credits, or simply for audit, meaning the students complete the module in addition to their normal credits. Elective modules are available to students in stage 1–4 of the undergraduate degree programme and approximately one third of undergraduate students complete this module at some stage in their undergraduate degree. A wide variety of projects are offered, including laboratory-based and hospital-based research projects, community-based projects with patient groups or charities, biomedical engineering or veterinary projects and clinical audits or observerships. A selection of the projects are carried out abroad in other institutions, and these are often competitively attained through rigorous selection processes. This programme broadly offers a significant degree of flexibility for students who choose to participate, and fundamental aspects will be similar to programmes offered within other medical schools.

In order to ensure such experiences are effective for students, it is important to understand the medical students’ perspective on the research-teaching nexus. The development of students’ awareness and perception of research throughout the medical degree is also unknown. Identifying opportunities and barriers, and defining examples of best practice, will allow us to tailor our approach to maximise the benefits for medical education.

The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate these important issues in a cohort of undergraduate medical students in UCD, to provide insight and considerations for the development of integrated research and scholarship programmes in medical schools at national and international levels.

Study design

All students registered to the undergraduate medicine programme from Stage 1 to Stage 5 were eligible to participate in the study. The UCD Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the study and permission to access students was confirmed from Head of School, Dean of Medicine (Ref# LS-17-106-Howell).

An email was sent to all undergraduate medical students explaining the aims of the project, and informing students that focus groups would be carried out for each stage during the semester. For early pre-clinical stages, a brief overview of the aims of the project was explained to the class at the start of a lecture and the students volunteered to attend the focus group immediately after the lecture, with refreshments provided. In the later clinical stages of the degree, where students are based in the teaching hospitals, students were emailed and requested to voluntarily attend a focus group by specialty coordinators. The focus groups were subsequently carried out in the teaching hospitals. Five focus groups, one per stage, were facilitated by an independent research assistant and limited to 10 students per focus group (n = 7 to 10 per focus group).

Methodological rationale and study procedure

Focus groups are a methodological approach utilising group discussion to gather data from a number of people simultaneously. Although not without limitations, they are a particularly useful tool to collect data from a representative selection of a population to identify group attitudes and experiences [ 17 , 18 ]. A central characteristic of focus groups is that rather than inviting individual responses for each question, they capitalise on the interaction and communication between participants to facilitate an understanding not just of the opinions of participants, but also how those opinions were formed. Focus groups thus encourage participation and interaction, and consequently provide rich content, otherwise difficult to obtain using alternative methods [ 18 ]. In this study, the undergraduate medical cohort was considered to be a relatively homogenous population, despite potential differences between the perceived awareness and experience of early-stage and late-stage students. Participants were not pre-defined to specifically represent, for example, those who had an interest in embedding research in their future career, those who had completed research projects or students who had clinical experience and may have a different view of the relevance of research to their clinical career. Rather the random nature of participant recruitment should give a more varied set of responses, pertinent to the undergraduate medical student cohort in general and thus provide a basis for enhancing research and scholarly experiences for all students, not just those with an interest in research.

At the beginning of the focus group, students were given the focus group schedule, project information leaflet and consent form. The research assistant recorded the focus groups on two separate devices, and each focus group lasted approximately 50–60 minutes. The same questions were posed to each of the five focus groups, to ensure comparisons could be made between students’ perceptions and opinions at different stages of their medical degree. The content evolved organically through interactive discussion, meaning that not all students contributed to all questions. Rather, if the group considered their opinions had already been discussed, the research assistant moved to the next question. This approach allows the identification of emerging themes relevant to all medical students, but moreover facilitates the identification of whether these themes are more or less applicable relative to stage, gender or nationality. The focus group schedule used in this project was adapted from one used previously in a large-scale UCD fellowship project evaluating research-teaching linkages across other degree programmes [ 11 ].

Research questions

The study attempted to address the following broad research questions:

• What do medical students understand about doing research in Medicine?
• Are undergraduate medical students aware of research in the university and how has this awareness developed?
• What research experiences do medical students have and what worked well?
• How have research experiences, if any, impacted their learning?
• Do they perceive research to be important in undergraduate medicine, are there sufficient opportunities and how can we improve this?

The full focus group schedule is included.

Data analysis

Audio files from each of the five focus groups were transcribed, and the text was imported into NVivo software for qualitative analysis (QSR International). In total, approximately 5 hours of discussion was transcribed and evaluated. NVivo facilitates organisation of qualitative data in an advanced format that permits cross- referencing, queries and visualisation of data to identify patterns and themes. Students remained anonymous throughout the focus group, however identified themselves by number prior to each dialogue.

Thematic analysis is a method designed to identify and analyse patterns or themes which emerge from qualitative data [ 19 ] using the principles defined by Morse (2015) [ 20 ]. Each focus group’s transcribed file was coded for thematic analysis by both the author and research assistant independently. Each of the five focus groups was analysed within NVivo as a separate file, allowing identification of comments relative to stage. Each broad question formed a ‘parent node’, and the answers coded within specific ‘child nodes’ according to similar recurring themes. For example, identification of how students were aware of research carried out in UCD (parent node) revealed broad themes such as the ‘built environment’, ‘information from lecturers’, or ‘school emails’, with each of these categories forming a separate child node within the parent node.

Following analysis, each node included a list of linked comments, recognisable by stage. Student answers could be categorised in more than one node depending on the content of the comments. Following the initial analysis, the data was re-evaluated to combine or condense similar nodes or re-categorise if appropriate. Following the second analysis, each node was reviewed to ensure consistency of responses. Recurring themes evident throughout the focus group also emerged during the initial coding process. These nodes were defined and amalgamated during the second analysis phase. The analysis was integrated by incorporating illustrative examples of extracts from the data with the analytical narrative of the coded responses.

Data was thus examined for recurring themes within broad questions and qualitative data was expressed as the number of responses or where appropriate as percentage of total answers in each parent node. NVivo facilitates analysis of responses across stages so that any changes in students’ awareness or perception as they progressed through their degree could be identified. Differences between stages were analysed by performing matrix coding using the nodes as the matrix item and stage as the attribute. Following analysis of the focus groups, the dimensions of research-teaching linkages perceived by the student to be important were identified.

Demographic characteristics

Students participating in the study were all recruited voluntarily and randomly across each of the five stages of undergraduate medicine. Each focus group had 7–10 participants and included 21 men (50%) and 21 women (50%) ( Table 1 ). Penang Medical School (PMC) students, who are awarded a UCD degree but undertake a 5-year degree with their final 2.5 years of clinical training in Malaysia, accounted for four of the nine Stage 2 students but were not represented in the other stages. Students taking part in the focus groups were further categorised based on their nationality. Approximately two thirds (69%) of participants were Irish, 2 students (5%) were from the E.U. namely France and the remaining students represented 7 other countries including Malaysia, Canada, USA, Singapore, Nigeria, Botswana and Australia. This represents the multicultural nature of the course, the university and Ireland in general.

Table showing demographics of the focus group participants. Students identified as Males or Females, and either Irish, E.U., in both cases French, or Non- E.U. from Malaysia, Canada, USA, Singapore, Nigeria, Botswana and Australia. Focus group number ranged from 7–10 per group and 42 students were included in total.

Medical students’ awareness of research

Students were firstly asked whether they were aware that research was carried out in UCD and how that awareness developed. All participants indicated they were aware that research was carried out. There were 69 instances in total where students described how the awareness of research originated, with some students providing more than one example. This awareness stemmed predominantly (30 of the 69 responses) from information imparted by educators associated with the course. Lecturers, and to a lesser extent, demonstrators (often PhD students involved in delivery of practical classes), were mentioned by students across all stages, whereas later stage students, immersed in a clinical setting, were more likely to discuss the influence that clinical tutors had on their awareness of research. Although the lecturer may not have provided sufficient information regarding the precise nature of the research carried out, it made students aware that research was ongoing in the university.

Students’ awareness of research also arose from information sent to them from the school, particularly regarding the SSRA programme (11 of the 69 responses); this peaked at Stage 3 students which corresponds to the most likely stage that undergraduates undertake an SSRA project. Stage 4 and 5 students also discussed an intercalated MSc programme option (6 responses), and the final year medical elective (6 responses), which can potentially be a research project, although this was not widely known. The built environment surrounding the students also heightened their awareness of research activity (6 responses); specifically, students discussed a biomedical research centre adjacent to the Medical School building, but felt somewhat detached from activities within. Other minor influences included information from peers, university reputation and social media.

Medical students’ understanding of research in medicine

Students were then asked about their understanding of what it means to do research in medicine. There were 30 responses in total. Students from all stages referred to improving our understanding of medicine (one third of all responses) and working in a laboratory as examples of what medical research means to them. As the students progressed through the course, their ability to articulate a deeper understanding of what it means to do research in medicine became apparent. Early-stage students refer to medical research as something that increases our understanding of the human body, finding new cures and advancing therapeutics. However, once students have been exposed to a clinical setting, from late Stage 3 onwards, their concept of research in medicine expands to recognise the importance of evidence-based practice, and an understanding of the valuable contribution that clinicians make to medical research and society.

Stage 1, Female

“ Erm , I guess it’s about contributing to the field , erm trying to advance it . You know , clinical trials , looking for new drugs to cure diseases that aren’t curable . Trying to progress the drugs and treatments that are out there . ”

Stage 5, Male

“ I guess my understanding of research in medicine has come on a lot in the last year since we have lectures in hospital with the consultants we see out on the wards , but who also who talk about their research interests . I think that reinforced the idea that medicine is evidence-based and research has to play a key part in it . I feel like when we were book-learning in college and stuff , it didn’t seem… it wasn’t as tangible the link between medicine and research , whereas when you are in hospital you can see that much more clearly , especially when the people you are learning from are talking about it . And erm… I guess the clinicians are best placed to see where improvements could be made . I feel like more so in the last year than in my pre-clinical years I have a gained an understanding of the importance of research . ”

Medical students’ exposure to research in their medical degree

Students were next asked to describe instances where they had learned about research, been taught about research, or had any research experiences. Responses were coded as ‘learning about others’ research’ ( research-led ), ‘learning about research’ ( research-tutored ), ‘learning by doing research’ ( research-based ) and ‘learning to do research’ ( research-orientated ) based on the framework of Healey [ 11 ].

Broadly, the undergraduate medical students perception of their experience of research was fairly limited. Early Stage 1 and 2 students in particular articulated that they had little or no research experience. Despite their awareness of research predominantly emanating from staff discussing their research, students rarely described ‘learning about others’ research’ as a research experience. Where students described their research experiences, it was associated with describing research they had carried out i.e. ‘learning by doing research’.

Interviewer:

“ Can you identify any instances where you have learned about research , been taught about research , or had any research experiences during your studies ? ”

Stage 2: Female

“ I wouldn’t personally count lectures as like significant contact , so I would answer no to this question . ”

Stage 1: Female

“ I wouldn’t say we had research experiences . Erm , I don’t know what is available in the school of medicine as it is very far removed from us . Kinda what participant 5 was saying there , I am not sure we can have research at the moment , we are not really sure what is involved . We are not sure what we could add , who is involved in the research . As in , is it to lead research , what knowledge do you need to have ? If it is research assistants what do they have to do . We don’t know how able we have to be to actually get involved in SSRA or anything , ‘cos we don’t know what that would mean . ”

Stage 4: Male

“ In terms of learning about research or being taught about research , we have a lot of lectures across multiple modules across multiple years on research methods and statistics and epidemiology as well . They are not particularly practical , but they give you a good sort of basis in that you emerge with an awareness of what research is , what kind of research exists but it always seems a little bit more theoretical than any sort of practical day to day how to go about it and one thing about these modules is they never include any sort of opportunities–it’s almost like you are studying about research but they don’t seem to presume that you are ever going to be doing research rather that you have an awareness of it so when you are reading a paper you can understand the terminology . ”

From Stage 3 onwards, the proportion of students who discussed their personal experiences of doing research, particularly the SSRA, increased. In some cases, late-stage students had undertaken more than one SSRA project or had independently acquired research experiences outside of the university. Approximately one third of the students in the focus group had experience of research through doing an SSRA project. This correlates closely with the number of undergraduate students completing an SSRA project in the medical school.

The impact of research experiences on students’ learning

The impact of research experiences on students’ learning could be categorised broadly as negative or no impact, potential/perceived impact, or positive impact ( Fig 1 ). Approximately one third of responses (18 from 53 comments) stated that research had no impact on their learning, mostly because they had no research experience or occasionally because they did not perceive a relationship between research and learning outcomes or educational experience. In some cases, students did not see a benefit to doing research.

Across all 5 stages, there were 53 references or responses to the impact of research. Over half (53% of 53 responses) suggested that research had a positive impact. These positive impacts are represented in the second smaller pie chart. Approximately one third (34% of 53 responses) indicated no impact of research, predominantly because of lack of research experiences or occasionally because students did not see a role for research in their career.

Stage 3 Male:

“ Erm , I think , for the vast majority of people who I would be talking to in my year would have a very practical approach to the medical degree . Erm , that I think the majority of people will be expected to work in medical practice and not in research . The people I hang out with generally would be focusing towards that and maybe research would be easier to avoid , if that is not going to be part of your career . ”

Some students without research experience appreciated the potential that research could have on enhancing their learning experience. Over half of responses (35 of 53 statements) described the positive effect that research had on their learning. These benefits including making subjects more relevant or enhancing their understanding or interest in a topic.

Stage 1 Female:

“ Even like the tiny bits , you know some lecturers would mention , especially in the biology ones that they are doing some research . It just make it more relevant , even regardless of what we have to do in the future it makes it easier to connect what’s going on . Just so , you know if you are just given the material and it might be , I don’t know , some material and you are told to go learn it , you don’t really know why you are doing . Whereas when they talk about the research you understand why you are being taught it . ”

Stage 5 Male

“ I don’t know if it’s impacted learning but more impacted your interests . So say like if you did a research project in a certain area , like , depending on whether you like the project or not , you may have an increased interest in that area . So it might propel you to study that topic a bit more or look into it in a bit more detail . But I don’t think it impacts your learning overall . ”

Medical students were aware of the potential impact research experiences would have on their career progression, such as enhancement of their curriculum vitae or an achievement of fulfilling an expectation. The impact on career progression was almost exclusively reported by Stage 5 students.

Stage 5 Female

“ That being said , I think I got a better appreciation for the fact that people within medicine are very well respected if they are researchers , in a lot of ways . So like , they might be clinicians by day but then , you know , researchers by night , but they’ll have publications and the more publications the more prestigious or like there is kind of , there is a respect for researchers in medicine and I think I noticed that a lot more when I was involved in the SSRA . ”

Emerging themes: Opportunity and timing of research

Two specific thematic areas emerged following coding of the focus group transcripts–‘opportunity for research’ and ‘timing of research’. Students reported a lack of opportunity to undertake research, particularly in early Stages 1 and 2. More importantly, students described how a lack of research experience hindered the opportunity to undertake research projects ( Fig 2 ). This was a recurring theme throughout all stages of the programme.

In total, 56 responses or references to research opportunity were discussed during the focus groups. Lack of experiences being a barrier to research was discussed by students in all 5 stages. Early stage students described a lack of opportunity for research, whereas later stage students were more aware of a variety of research opportunities, however considered there was an inequality of opportunity to undertake research.

“ I would add that , if applying to the SSRA because a lot of them are so specialised , you do need to have very specific skills if you want to do the research properly , so I definitely feel that is a barrier because I don’t have my research skills at this point and I feel there are very little opportunities to gain them”

Late-stage students reported that research experiences were available, however they felt that there was an inequality of access to research opportunities, particularly if students were not available in the summer to complete an SSRA ( Fig 2 ).

Stage 4 Female

“ […] the SSRA projects it’s a great initiative and it has tons of projects for people to do but its I think the engagement is probably low . The only way I wanted to do research last summer is if I got paid for it and I ended up getting some money and so I was just very lucky that everything fell together and while I did have a great experience and I am doing research again this summer I think it was just everything falling in to place–the opportunities are sometimes hard to find . ”

Despite not being specifically addressed in the focus group schedule, the timing of research experiences was discussed extensively by medical students throughout the focus group session. A substantial cohort of Stage 1 students suggested that research opportunities should be available early in the course ( Fig 3 ), however this was tempered by a consideration that lack of experience hinders their opportunity to be competitive for research projects available ( Fig 3 ) and consequently research opportunities were more likely to occur later in their course.

Each of the five stages of undergraduate medicine is represented individually, to facilitate an understanding of when research experiences are considered most appropriate. Students largely believed that research opportunities should be available early in the curriculum, although some later-stage students perceived that their enhanced understanding of curricular content would mean later research experiences would be more relevant.

‘ At this stage I don’t want a research role as that would be a lot of responsibility but any sort of lab work would be helpful in the future because really I have no experience and I am sure everyone would agree that we have no experience in lab work and I am sure that would help us in further years in applying and getting these opportunities . And also I had work experience in a clinic where they were doing clinical trials and were doing research and I can definitely see how that would transfer into our professional careers in the future . So, it is important to start as early as possible ”

The remainder of early-stage medical students had limited interest in early research opportunities, however the majority were acutely aware that research would be necessary later in the course.

Stage 1 Male

“ I think there are very little incentives to get involved in the early stages . So , pre-med (stage 1) students wouldn’t be particularly interested in getting involved in various different types of research but I think as the years go on , it is not just an expectation , it is a necessity for us to get involved in terms of where we want to go after we graduate . ”

A substantial cohort of late-stage students also suggested that early opportunities for research projects would be beneficial, particularly from availability of time perspective. Elective modules are available in the earlier years, giving students the opportunity to potentially incorporate research into their curriculum. Late-stage students also acknowledged that their advanced clinical knowledge made later-stage research experiences more relevant.

Stage 4: Female

“ I think as well you need to look at the curriculum in medicine . I mean at the end of pre- med and with no discredit to the course you haven’t actually learned a lot about medicine and in first med you are just getting to grips with the topics and then you do pharmacology and you are getting a broader understanding of medicine so then maybe that enables you or you feel more equipped to carry out a project but then you are like … oh actually I have learned about this and you can relate to it better because often times as I have said before the topics for SSRA or other research projects were quite complex , and maybe you are like … . oh I understood that word but I don’t necessarily know what that means but later you are like oh I remember that from that lecture or we learned about that here”

Recommendations for improvements

There was an overwhelming assertion that it is valuable to include experiences of research and/or learning about research skills in the undergraduate medical programme, however students asserted that there were insufficient research opportunities currently available. The students were subsequently asked for recommendations to rectify this situation ( Table 2 ).

The number of responses for recommendations for improvement of research-teaching linkages in undergraduate medical curriculum across all five stages. Final column shows the percentage of responses for each recommendation.

However almost half of the 110 responses to this question in the focus group recommended that research be embedded within the curriculum, either as a core component or as an elective module, and particularly around Stage 2.

“ I think it would be better if it was included and didn’t involve giving up 2 months of your summer , ‘cos there are loads of people who feel they have to earn money or want to travel and I think if we were able to do even 3 weeks then we have time to do other stuff as well instead of taking up the whole summer and being in UCD for another 2 months . ”

Stage 1 Female

“ […]we kinda have just done science this year and so we wouldn’t be able to contribute to research . So then we have a disinterest , but maybe if the opportunity was presented to us to even observe research being done . Just because it will benefit us in the future , then if we can have that exposure we might realise how interested we are in the research . You know , it could follow from there , like even if we had a research elective or module where you go and watch others do research and if it was built in . ”

Stage 3 Male

“ […] I see how important research is but I feel like , for most hospital jobs , you need to have done research at some stage . It would be great to have an introduction to it in college . If we were going to do research at some stage it would be good to get some introduction to research . ”

Stage 5: Female

“ In my mind it’s obviously a question of how much UCD is prioritising research for medical graduates to take part in . Because obviously it is very important to be involved in research for evidence-based medicine but , our only exposure to it is really through anecdotal stuff in lectures and through the SSRA and that’s like another elective five credit module . Whereas if there was say , a five or ten credit module , that was mandatory that focused on research , then we might have more of an incentive to try and get ourselves involved in research and then it would also be a UCD statement saying that we think that research is very , very important and so important that its worth mandatory credits . ”

Approximately 10% of the 110 responses requested an improvement to the SSRA programme, namely a more structured approach, more variety of projects and more information. Students also described how early exposure to researchers, peers, clinical role models was inspirational. This was linked to a request for improved research information, more research opportunity in general and specifically more information about the importance of research to a career in medicine.

“ …we are seeing in the journal clubs here and the grand rounds these people that we could be in their position and they think research is really important , so if we had role models–I don’t know if you know Prof H ? She gave the key note address at the student medical summit last year , just talking about how to integrate research into a clinical career . I think everyone came out of that thinking like , oh wow yeah that’s really cool and these are the steps she took and that’s something I could definitely do if I had to go down one route or another . It’s something to do with having role models . ”

Focus group schedule.

• Tell me a little about that.
• How did that awareness develop?
• How did that understanding develop?
• Can you talk about what you know of their research?
• Can you explain how that knowledge developed?
• Can you outline any specific examples?
• What worked well and what did not work so well? Why was that?
• Would you consider that you had research experiences other than the SSRA, and if so, how well did they work?
• Did that change over the course of your degree? (Stage 2 onwards)
• When did that change /those changes happen?
• Why did that change /those changes happen?
• In what way?
• Do you think that your programme has provided adequate experience of, and training in, research skills? Explain.
• We have come to the end now of the focus group. Before we finish up, is there anything that you would like to add?

The intimate relationship between research and teaching is now considered to be core to the effective functioning of research-intensive universities. This is particularly important in disciplines reliant on evidence-based practice such as medicine, which benefits greatly from the valuable insight provided by clinical scientists and their unique perspective from interactions with patients. The nature of the research-teaching nexus is constantly adapting to the ever-changing landscape of the educator-student dynamic [ 21 ]. The perceptions and experiences of the academic on research-teaching linkages are well-documented [ 22 , 23 ], however there are obvious disciplinary and institutional contexts.

A clear inconsistency of research opportunities offered during the medical degree persists at a global level. The development of these programmes is likely driven by an element of pragmatism, coupled with a consideration of the educational ethos of the institution. These fundamental, but potentially important differences such as duration of research experiences, extent of integration, availability, content and variety of projects, assessment, governance and stage at which they are available, generate a significant variance in programmes and consequently student experience. An ability to tailor research and teaching to maximise the benefit to students and enhance graduate attributes and outcomes relies on an understanding of the students’ perception.

This study evaluated the undergraduate medical student awareness of and exposure to research in a research-intensive university. It further examined whether research experience impacted student learning, whether current research opportunities were sufficient, identified examples of best practice and sought recommendations for improvements from students. The data was analysed across the five stages of undergraduate medicine to evaluate any changes that developed throughout the course.

The demographics of the participants reflected the multi-cultural diversity of the nature of a modern Irish medical school, including the connection with Penang Medical College (PMC) in Malaysia. Not all focus groups were an exact representation of the specific demographics of that stage. For example, Stage 2 participants were all non-E.U students, including 4 from Malaysia, who were potentially associated with PMC and therefore not represented in Stage 4 and 5 because of their return to clinical training in Penang. Stage 3 participants were all male, clearly not representative of the student cohort in that year. Overall the 42 participants were reflective of the undergraduate population at the time of the study and it is likely that a sufficient number of focus groups were performed to capture the important themes [ 17 , 24 ]. It has been suggested that 3 to 6 focus groups, with a homogenous population and a semi-structured discussion guide such as the focus group schedule used in this study, will likely capture 90% of all themes, including the most important ones [ 24 ]. Striking the balance between too few and too many focus groups is always open to discussion, and retrospectively it could be argued that more focus groups in each stage, or grouping pre-clinical and clinical students may strengthen the overall quality of the data.

Whilst it is possible that students from every individual medical school may also have unique perceptions on individual aspects of the study, dependent on the specific research experiences available to them, the overall themes that emerged from the data are highly likely to be relevant to the majority of medical students. The consistency of education governed by global standards determined by the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) suggests that students are likely to have shared perceptions and opinions. Hence data presented here may be transferable and applicable to a wider international setting.

The first question in the focus group addressed whether students were aware of research and how that awareness had developed. Although all students were aware of research ongoing in the university in general, almost 45% of the responses described how their awareness of research in Medicine developed from lecturers, clinical educators and, to a lesser extent, demonstrators, who are mostly active researcher students.

Research-intensive universities have achieved a dominant position within the third-level education system, and the impact of educating students in such an environment, despite the obvious added cost, is considered valuable to the student, researchers and institution alike. Inspired by the recommendations of the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University [ 25 ], and with the growing awareness of the benefits of incorporating research experiences into undergraduate curricula, there was an explosion of interest in this area [ 26 ]. Although there was an understanding of the link between teaching and research, not all supported the concept that they were mutually interdependent (Future of Higher Education White paper UK 2003), advancing the concept of teaching-only institutions in the UK. However, many case studies have been reported and reviews have concluded that the benefits are real and substantial [ 27 – 32 ], albeit when care is taken to avoid potential pitfalls [ 33 ]. This growing awareness of the positive influence on the student experience and graduate attributes has narrowed the gap between research and teaching in the academic setting, encouraging academics to attempt to incorporate their research into their lectures and creating scholarly research experience programmes such as the SSRA programme described here.

Incorporating research-led experiences [ 11 ] for students in this study has a positive impact on students’ awareness of the research ongoing in the university, however some students articulated a disconnect, either because these discussions of research were not assessed, or because it was not relevant to their studies. This is perhaps unsurprising given the suggestion that active involvement in research by students i.e. research-based experiences are the most effective form of research in terms of maximising depth of learning [ 11 ]. Moreover, despite the good intentions of staff to incorporate their research into their teaching, students did not report these circumstances of ‘learning about others’ research’ or research-led as a research experience.

This study also highlighted the impact of the built environment on students’ awareness of research in medicine. The presence of research centres on campus inculcates an awareness from as early as recruitment days in secondary schools, and some students iterated the positive influence this had on university choice. Surrounding the medical students in an environment of research can potentially stimulate research-mindedness, however most early-stage students in this study were unaware of the research carried out, further precipitating a sense of disconnect.

This disconnect between early-stage students and their comprehension of research was evidenced in terms of their verbalisation of understanding of what it meant to carry out research in medicine. All students appeared to understand that doing research in medicine furthered our understanding of clinical medicine and potentially contributed to improving society. However, later-stage students had a greater appreciation for the relevance, importance and clinical applicability that research served, discussing evidence-based practice and how their understanding of what research means has changed after doing research or as they progress through their course and experience how research impacts on clinical practice.

Addressing this disconnect between students and staff and research and teaching at an early stage must be priority in all research-intensive institutions. A number of models have been proposed to address these issues, however, student engagement must be at the heart of any proposals [ 11 , 34 , 35 ]. This is likely to involve a significant shift in how we structure and deliver the undergraduate curriculum, not just at a modular, programme or institutional level but at national and international levels.

This study also evaluated the impact that research had on students’ learning throughout their degree. Unsurprisingly, the later-stage students who were more likely to have completed a research project, recognised the impact of research on learning. Whilst some students, particularly early-stage students, had no experience of doing research, they could still articulate the potential positive impact that doing research may provide. Approximately two thirds of responses relating to this question were positive, and referred to benefits such as career enhancement and improved knowledge and skills. Of particular significance were the comments that research was simply interesting and made learning more relevant, but did not necessarily impact on learning.

It is not uncommon for students to underestimate the impact that research has on their education [ 36 ], however, it is also likely that the delivery of a coherent structured research experience, potentially embedded in the curriculum, would permit the student to reflect on their experience and evaluate the impact more cohesively. As academics, we frequently witness a transformative effect of completion of significant independent research projects on the confidence and capabilities of students. In the absence of formal reflection, it is probable that students do not appreciate or recognise this flourishing effect on their educational journey.

One of the main themes that emerged from the data was the issue of opportunity. Students across all stages, but particularly Stage 1 and 2, described a lack of opportunities for research despite the availability of a research module. Students have the opportunity to take a research elective module in the summer, the SSRA scheme, which involves an 8-week project supervised by a mentor, culminating in the submission of an abstract to the Irish Journal of Medical Sciences, and an oral presentation of the project in poster form. Each summer over one hundred national and international SSRA projects are completed, of which just over half are undertaken by undergraduate medicine students. Typically, the undergraduate medical students choose to do this module at the end of Stage 3 and approximately a third of undergraduate students would complete the module during their undergraduate course.

From the focus group analysis it was clear that students generally choose to wait until Stage 3 to complete this research project because they perceive that a lack of experience hinders their competitiveness. Students are permitted to do an SSRA every summer if they choose to, although they can only take it for 5 credits on one occasion. It was reassuring to see a few students describe completing two or more SSRAs in different areas of research, indicating a desire to pursue research within their course.

However, there was criticism of the scheme, particularly from later-stage students, who describe an inequality of opportunity for students who do not have the ability to do research in the summer, due to inexperience or financial or personal reasons. Although some of the projects, both national and international, are formally advertised, and can be applied for by any student, many projects are sought independently by students actively contacting researchers in other institutions who work in a field that is of interest to the student, or through personal contacts. This creates a somewhat ad hoc system of projects, which in many ways brings a unique variety to the programme. However, the lack of structure, consistent opportunity and equality is off-putting to some students.

The second theme to emerge from the data was the issue of timing of research opportunities. Although some later-stage students suggested that research was more relevant in later stages due to their superior knowledge, there was a consistent opinion across all stages that early research opportunities would be ideal. The motivation for early introduction to research was either to enhance competitiveness later in the course to overcome lack of experience, because they had more flexibility, time or less pressure in the early part of the course, or because they could take the SSRA for credits in the first three stages to contribute to the next stage GPA.

The evidence to support the benefits of incorporating research experiences into a medical curriculum is extensive [ 37 , 38 ] however much of the impetus for stimulating research predominantly focussed on MD or PhD programmes rather than the undergraduate experience [ 9 , 39 ]. More recently, the emphasis has somewhat shifted to research experiences for medical students throughout their course, whether these are embedded within the curriculum or as voluntary electives [ 8 , 9 , 37 , 39 ]. A number of large-scale funded programmes such as the Medical Student Research Fellowship Programme in the U.S. [ 9 ] and Medical Student Research projects in Norway [ 16 ] and the Netherlands [ 40 ] have been introduced to engage students at this crucially influential stage of their training and try to introduce a degree of consistency in student experience.

Research experiences provide a context for students’ learning and augment the understanding of the importance of research in their future careers. The data presented here demonstrate how understanding of research in undergraduate medical students evolves based on experience, and underlines the importance of early research opportunities to maximise the progression of this research journey. However this journey must surely not only be structured in nature but also mutually beneficial for both staff and students.

Most literature in this area looks at how research can impact on teaching and student engagement rather than the impact of teaching on research [ 41 ]. However, it has been suggested that not only does research have the ability to enhance teaching, but furthermore that teaching has the potential to enrich research [ 23 , 42 ] creating a dynamic relationship between academics and students. Nurturing of this important relationship has the potential to bridge the gap between research and teaching, and also staff and students, particularly by encouraging research-intensive staff to actively become involved in partnerships with students in research. A recent study by Fanghanel et al. (2016) [ 43 ] emphasised that the engagement of students is essential for the scholarship of teaching and learning, and recommended that institutions should provide sustained undergraduate research opportunities through staff-student partnership in order to develop meaningful student engagement.

Proposal for enhancement—Considerations for optimising the impact of research experiences for medical students

The recommendations of the students and important dimensions were encompassed into an emerging framework ( Fig 4 ), which was used as a basis for suggesting enhancement to research programmes. In this study, students overwhelmingly recommended early research opportunities embedded within the course, ideally in the form of structured research electives delivered longitudinally through the course, with clear programme overview and delivered at appropriate times during the course. This would facilitate all students potentially having equal access to basic research or scholarly experiences, with the opportunity to create a significant portfolio of sequential experiences, each building on previous skills and knowledge. Students suggest that research experiences should be recorded and verified to provide a useful mechanism to substantiate students’ appropriateness for future research opportunities, suggesting a passport style portfolio may be useful. Furthermore students require valuable research techniques to enhance their CV, meaning, where possible, students should have the opportunity to complete a module on relevant research skills.

The conceptualisation of an emerging framework places the student at the central character, identifies issues important to students (inner circle), and defines their perceived positive impacts in terms of their educational experience and future professional career (outer circle). This framework places the student at the central character, identifies issues important to students, and defines their perceived positive impacts in terms of their educational experience and future professional career.

Students consistently described how naïve and inexperienced they perceive themselves to be, lacking even a basic understanding of research. Hence, an early module in the fundamentals of research, available to a large cohort of medical students, is likely to be useful in terms of enhancing student basic knowledge and experience in research. This module could include input from senior clinical scientists, acting as role models to facilitate an early understanding of the benefits of research to the medical student. Fundamental skills such as hypothesis generation, critical analysis of published articles, how to find appropriate resources to support our discussion of data or even the ability to ask pertinent questions should be incorporated into early research modules.

Subsequent modules would ideally build on this fundamental research module, potentially incorporating small research projects, exploring more detailed research topics including for example qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Given the number of students who perceive medical research to be about ‘working in a lab’, coupled with the fact that this prospect does not appeal to all students, suggests that increasing the variety of projects offered to students may be crucial to improving the student uptake. Green et al., published a compendium of examples of scholarly concentration programmes, including detailed concentration areas. Whilst biomedical sciences make up the large proportion of research projects, there are examples of some very creative non-medical projects, such as creating art programmes for patients [ 12 ].

The constraints of fulfilling academic requirements from professional bodies may provide barriers for large-scale longitudinal research experiences in the absence of significant re-structuring of existing timetables. However a number of medical schools, particularly in the U.S., have successfully incorporated longitudinal research programmes across the duration of the course culminating in the production of a dissertation. The positive impact of such programmes have been successfully evaluated [ 8 , 12 – 14 ].

It is well-documented that the impact of students tangibly carrying out research projects is likely to be the most transformative [ 11 ], suggesting that any implementation of recommendations should, where possible, include a capstone project. This capstone project could potentially include, projects of limited duration (6–12 weeks), or more substantial such as an intercalated masters or PhD, or an M.D or clinical internship following graduation. An early opportunity to complete medicine-specific research elective modules is likely to have a significant impact on the undergraduate research journey and potentially encourage an increase in clinical scientist roles.

Limitations of the study and future research

The use of focus groups in Healthcare and Medical education has increased exponentially over the past few decades, mostly due to the ability to gain understanding not simply what people think, but importantly why they think that way. However it is still clear that more stringent guidelines are required to help define appropriate sampling strategies, focus group number, homogenous versus heterogenous sampling balance, with the aim to maximise the methodological approach and ensure the approach is fit for purpose. In this study, it could be argued that the opinions and experiences of first year and final students may vary quite differently and therefore the undergraduate medical student cohort is not completely homogenous. Moving forward, it may be more appropriate to increase the number of focus groups from early and late- stage students, in order to analyse differences in opinions between these more homogenous groups of students and strengthen the quality of the data obtained.

The approach taken in this study was to avoid pre-conceptions during sampling, and these differences emerged naturally from the data, with early-stage (1–3) and later-stage (4–5) students expressing divergent opinions on some aspects of the discussion. This corresponded to exposure to the clinical environment, where the impact, usefulness and relevance of research could more easily be appreciated. It may also have coincided with the point at which students were more likely to have experience of independent research and scholarly experiences, giving them a more informed opinion of the value of research. However, it was also reassuring to see that although there were differences of opinion and awareness between early and later-stage students, there was also consistency across all students, particularly in their recommendations for enhancement of scholarly experiences. Furthermore, the experiences of all undergraduate students, regardless of stage, research or clinical experience were captured.

In summary, this data provides an insight into medical students perception, awareness and impact of research-teaching linkages and the opportunity to undertake scholarly activity and research as part of their medical education. Research opportunities vary considerably between medical schools, however, the goal of these experiences is to augment the students’ critical analysis, improve communication skills, inculcate a curiosity to inspire life-long learning, enhance the student experience and inevitably train better physicians. Ideally, this will increase the number of clinical scientists, a measure which will undoubtable have positive impacts on patient outcomes. Whilst pragmatic issues will inevitably dictate elements of scholarly programmes, this framework places the student at the central character, identifies issues important to students, and defines their perceived positive impacts in terms of their educational experience and future professional career.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Ms. Rachel Niland, research assistant on the project for her outstanding contribution to the focus groups and analysis.

Funding Statement

KH R17781 Irish Network of Medical Educators (INMED) now name changed to INHED https://www.inhed.ie/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability