what's in the methods section of a research paper

Generate accurate APA citations for free

Knowledge Base
APA Style 7th edition
How to write an APA methods section

How to Write an APA Methods Section | With Examples

Published on February 5, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

The methods section of an APA style paper is where you report in detail how you performed your study. Research papers in the social and natural sciences often follow APA style. This article focuses on reporting quantitative research methods .

In your APA methods section, you should report enough information to understand and replicate your study, including detailed information on the sample , measures, and procedures used.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Structuring an apa methods section.

Participants

Example of an APA methods section

Other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing an apa methods section.

The main heading of “Methods” should be centered, boldfaced, and capitalized. Subheadings within this section are left-aligned, boldfaced, and in title case. You can also add lower level headings within these subsections, as long as they follow APA heading styles .

To structure your methods section, you can use the subheadings of “Participants,” “Materials,” and “Procedures.” These headings are not mandatory—aim to organize your methods section using subheadings that make sense for your specific study.

Note that not all of these topics will necessarily be relevant for your study. For example, if you didn’t need to consider outlier removal or ways of assigning participants to different conditions, you don’t have to report these steps.

The APA also provides specific reporting guidelines for different types of research design. These tell you exactly what you need to report for longitudinal designs , replication studies, experimental designs , and so on. If your study uses a combination design, consult APA guidelines for mixed methods studies.

Detailed descriptions of procedures that don’t fit into your main text can be placed in supplemental materials (for example, the exact instructions and tasks given to participants, the full analytical strategy including software code, or additional figures and tables).

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

Missing commas and periods
Incorrect usage of “et al.”
Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
Missing reference entries

what's in the methods section of a research paper

Begin the methods section by reporting sample characteristics, sampling procedures, and the sample size.

Participant or subject characteristics

When discussing people who participate in research, descriptive terms like “participants,” “subjects” and “respondents” can be used. For non-human animal research, “subjects” is more appropriate.

Specify all relevant demographic characteristics of your participants. This may include their age, sex, ethnic or racial group, gender identity, education level, and socioeconomic status. Depending on your study topic, other characteristics like educational or immigration status or language preference may also be relevant.

Be sure to report these characteristics as precisely as possible. This helps the reader understand how far your results may be generalized to other people.

The APA guidelines emphasize writing about participants using bias-free language , so it’s necessary to use inclusive and appropriate terms.

Sampling procedures

Outline how the participants were selected and all inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. Appropriately identify the sampling procedure used. For example, you should only label a sample as random if you had access to every member of the relevant population.

Of all the people invited to participate in your study, note the percentage that actually did (if you have this data). Additionally, report whether participants were self-selected, either by themselves or by their institutions (e.g., schools may submit student data for research purposes).

Identify any compensation (e.g., course credits or money) that was provided to participants, and mention any institutional review board approvals and ethical standards followed.

Sample size and power

Detail the sample size (per condition) and statistical power that you hoped to achieve, as well as any analyses you performed to determine these numbers.

It’s important to show that your study had enough statistical power to find effects if there were any to be found.

Additionally, state whether your final sample differed from the intended sample. Your interpretations of the study outcomes should be based only on your final sample rather than your intended sample.

Write up the tools and techniques that you used to measure relevant variables. Be as thorough as possible for a complete picture of your techniques.

Primary and secondary measures

Define the primary and secondary outcome measures that will help you answer your primary and secondary research questions.

Specify all instruments used in gathering these measurements and the construct that they measure. These instruments may include hardware, software, or tests, scales, and inventories.

To cite hardware, indicate the model number and manufacturer.
To cite common software (e.g., Qualtrics), state the full name along with the version number or the website URL .
To cite tests, scales or inventories, reference its manual or the article it was published in. It’s also helpful to state the number of items and provide one or two example items.

Make sure to report the settings of (e.g., screen resolution) any specialized apparatus used.

For each instrument used, report measures of the following:

Reliability : how consistently the method measures something, in terms of internal consistency or test-retest reliability.
Validity : how precisely the method measures something, in terms of construct validity or criterion validity .

Giving an example item or two for tests, questionnaires , and interviews is also helpful.

Describe any covariates—these are any additional variables that may explain or predict the outcomes.

Quality of measurements

Review all methods you used to assure the quality of your measurements.

These may include:

training researchers to collect data reliably,
using multiple people to assess (e.g., observe or code) the data,
translation and back-translation of research materials,
using pilot studies to test your materials on unrelated samples.

For data that’s subjectively coded (for example, classifying open-ended responses), report interrater reliability scores. This tells the reader how similarly each response was rated by multiple raters.

Report all of the procedures applied for administering the study, processing the data, and for planned data analyses.

Data collection methods and research design

Data collection methods refers to the general mode of the instruments: surveys, interviews, observations, focus groups, neuroimaging, cognitive tests, and so on. Summarize exactly how you collected the necessary data.

Describe all procedures you applied in administering surveys, tests, physical recordings, or imaging devices, with enough detail so that someone else can replicate your techniques. If your procedures are very complicated and require long descriptions (e.g., in neuroimaging studies), place these details in supplementary materials.

To report research design, note your overall framework for data collection and analysis. State whether you used an experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive (observational), correlational, and/or longitudinal design. Also note whether a between-subjects or a within-subjects design was used.

For multi-group studies, report the following design and procedural details as well:

how participants were assigned to different conditions (e.g., randomization),
instructions given to the participants in each group,
interventions for each group,
the setting and length of each session(s).

Describe whether any masking was used to hide the condition assignment (e.g., placebo or medication condition) from participants or research administrators. Using masking in a multi-group study ensures internal validity by reducing research bias . Explain how this masking was applied and whether its effectiveness was assessed.

Participants were randomly assigned to a control or experimental condition. The survey was administered using Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com). To begin, all participants were given the AAI and a demographics questionnaire to complete, followed by an unrelated filler task. In the control condition , participants completed a short general knowledge test immediately after the filler task. In the experimental condition, participants were asked to visualize themselves taking the test for 3 minutes before they actually did. For more details on the exact instructions and tasks given, see supplementary materials.

Data diagnostics

Outline all steps taken to scrutinize or process the data after collection.

This includes the following:

Procedures for identifying and removing outliers
Data transformations to normalize distributions
Compensation strategies for overcoming missing values

To ensure high validity, you should provide enough detail for your reader to understand how and why you processed or transformed your raw data in these specific ways.

Analytic strategies

The methods section is also where you describe your statistical analysis procedures, but not their outcomes. Their outcomes are reported in the results section.

These procedures should be stated for all primary, secondary, and exploratory hypotheses. While primary and secondary hypotheses are based on a theoretical framework or past studies, exploratory hypotheses are guided by the data you’ve just collected.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

This annotated example reports methods for a descriptive correlational survey on the relationship between religiosity and trust in science in the US. Hover over each part for explanation of what is included.

The sample included 879 adults aged between 18 and 28. More than half of the participants were women (56%), and all participants had completed at least 12 years of education. Ethics approval was obtained from the university board before recruitment began. Participants were recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; www.mturk.com). We selected for a geographically diverse sample within the Midwest of the US through an initial screening survey. Participants were paid USD $5 upon completion of the study.

A sample size of at least 783 was deemed necessary for detecting a correlation coefficient of ±.1, with a power level of 80% and a significance level of .05, using a sample size calculator (www.sample-size.net/correlation-sample-size/).

The primary outcome measures were the levels of religiosity and trust in science. Religiosity refers to involvement and belief in religious traditions, while trust in science represents confidence in scientists and scientific research outcomes. The secondary outcome measures were gender and parental education levels of participants and whether these characteristics predicted religiosity levels.

Religiosity

Religiosity was measured using the Centrality of Religiosity scale (Huber, 2003). The Likert scale is made up of 15 questions with five subscales of ideology, experience, intellect, public practice, and private practice. An example item is “How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine intervenes in your life?” Participants were asked to indicate frequency of occurrence by selecting a response ranging from 1 (very often) to 5 (never). The internal consistency of the instrument is .83 (Huber & Huber, 2012).

Trust in Science

Trust in science was assessed using the General Trust in Science index (McCright, Dentzman, Charters & Dietz, 2013). Four Likert scale items were assessed on a scale from 1 (completely distrust) to 5 (completely trust). An example question asks “How much do you distrust or trust scientists to create knowledge that is unbiased and accurate?” Internal consistency was .8.

Potential participants were invited to participate in the survey online using Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com). The survey consisted of multiple choice questions regarding demographic characteristics, the Centrality of Religiosity scale, an unrelated filler anagram task, and finally the General Trust in Science index. The filler task was included to avoid priming or demand characteristics, and an attention check was embedded within the religiosity scale. For full instructions and details of tasks, see supplementary materials.

For this correlational study , we assessed our primary hypothesis of a relationship between religiosity and trust in science using Pearson moment correlation coefficient. The statistical significance of the correlation coefficient was assessed using a t test. To test our secondary hypothesis of parental education levels and gender as predictors of religiosity, multiple linear regression analysis was used.

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

Normal distribution
Measures of central tendency
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles

Methodology

Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Thematic analysis
Cohort study
Peer review
Ethnography

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Conformity bias
Hawthorne effect
Availability heuristic
Attrition bias
Social desirability bias

In your APA methods section , you should report detailed information on the participants, materials, and procedures used.

Describe all relevant participant or subject characteristics, the sampling procedures used and the sample size and power .
Define all primary and secondary measures and discuss the quality of measurements.
Specify the data collection methods, the research design and data analysis strategy, including any steps taken to transform the data and statistical analyses.

You should report methods using the past tense , even if you haven’t completed your study at the time of writing. That’s because the methods section is intended to describe completed actions or research.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). How to Write an APA Methods Section | With Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/apa-style/methods-section/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, how to write an apa results section, apa format for academic papers and essays, apa headings and subheadings, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin

The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.

Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'

The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.

This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.

What to Include in a Method Section

So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:

Research design
Participants
Participant behavior

The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.

Components of a Method Section

The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.

Participants

In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.

For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."

At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:

Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
The population from which your participants were drawn
Any restrictions on your pool of participants
How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)

Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.

In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:

Testing instruments
Technical equipment
Any psychological assessments that were used
Any special equipment that was used

For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."

For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.

Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.

In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:

The independent variables
Dependent variables
Control variables
Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.

Also, explain whether your experiment uses a within-groups or between-groups design.

For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."

The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:

What the participants did
How data was collected
The order in which steps occurred

For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."

Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:

Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.

After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.

A Word From Verywell

The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.

Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.

Frequently Asked Questions

While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.

Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
Describe how the data was collected

To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.

The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047

Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.

American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

How to write the Methods section of a research paper

Dr. Dhriti Bhattacharyya

The Methods section of a research article is like a roadmap leading to the core of the research, guiding the readers through the actual journey the authors took to reach their destination. In the manuscript, this section contains the essential details for other scientists to replicate the experiments of the study and help the common readers to understand the study better.

In this article, we will share some tips to make the Methods section of your manuscript interesting and informative. While the article uses examples mostly from the biomedical and clinical research studies, authors from other fields too would find the tips useful for preparing their next manuscript.

Break ice between the readers and the Methods section

First, let’s ponder over the issue of the perception of boredom we often associate with the Methods section of an article. It may be the names of the reagents and instruments, separated by some numbers in terms of some concentrations or the technical terminologies that make the reading a heavy-duty task. Listed below are some useful ways of breaking the ice between the Methods section and the readers:

1. Explanation : Usually, each paragraph or subsection of the Methods section talks about a specific experiment. Early in each paragraph, explain the rationale behind your choices of that particular experiment.; for example, why you used a certain compound, a specific strain of mice as the experimental model or the particular concentration of that key reagent.

For clinical research, providing a detailed rationale for selecting the exclusion or inclusion criteria can be a good idea to present early in the Methods section. If you took a conventional or widely used method, you certainly don’t need to appear stating the obvious, but for less conventional approaches sharing your reasoning of the study design instantly makes the readers curious and engaged with your paper.

2. Visual presentation : To help the readers follow the study design or methodology better, visual elements like the schematic diagram, flowchart, and table can be used in this section. They help in breaking the monotony and making the absorption of complex information easy.

The dos and don’ts of writing the Methods section

Secondly, the information in the methods section is closely scrutinized by the journal editors and peer reviewers to assess whether the most appropriate technique was used to reach your research goal. While every detail of your experiment need not be included, the essential and critical steps should be well described to receive a positive peer review.

The essential do’s and don’ts of writing a technically sound Methods section:

1. Adhere to the specific guidelines: Read the author’s instruction section of your target journal carefully and follow the specific instructions. For example, the heading of the section “Materials and Methods” may need to be changed to “Patients and the Method” to follow the guidelines of your target journal or the name of the institutes could be omitted for the journals that do not prefer open-label reporting. Also, you may be expected to follow a particular style guideline like the one published by the American Psychological Association while writing the Methods section.

Biomedical researchers would benefit from using the checklists for different study types to ensure the essential details are included in the Methods. Some of the standardized and widely referred checklists include the ones for randomized clinical trials CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), cohort, case-control, cross‐sectional studies STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology), diagnostic accuracy STARD (STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies), systematic reviews and meta‐analyses PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses), and Case reports CARE (CAse REport).

2. Structure the section so that it tells the story of your research : All the experiments should be presented in a logical manner that helps the reader retrace the gradual and development and nuances of the study. A useful way of achieving this is to describe the methods in a chronological order of the experiments. For example: for a clinical trial, you may start with the setting and time of the study ( the beginning and termination dates of the study) , followed by the details of the patient recruitment ( Number of subjects/patients etc.) , study design (prospective, retrospective or other), randomization (if any), assigning into groups, intervention, and describing the techniques used to collect, measure, and analyse data.

3. Follow the order of the results: To improve the readability and flow of your manuscript, match the order of specific methods to the order of the results that were achieved using those methods.

4. Use subheadings: Dividing the Methods section in terms of the experiments helps the reader to follow the section better. You may write the specific objective of each experiment as a subheading. Alternatively, if applicable, the name of each experiment can also be used as subheading.

5. Provide all details meticulously: Provide the details that you considered while designing the study or collecting the data because the smallest variations in these steps may affect the results and interpretation of their significance. When employing the outcome measures, the readers would like to know the information regarding validity and reliability. The correct way of reporting the reliability and the validity depends on the specific research design. Usually, information from existing literature is presented to support for the reliability and the validity of a measure.

Carefully describe the materials, equipment (like testing instruments and technical equipment), or stimuli used in the experiment. If your study involved a survey or any psychological assessment, mention the questionnaire, scoring methods, and validation of scales with every possible detail.

Also, be careful about one common manuscript error i.e. not mentioning the sample size estimation (whenever relevant). Although the estimated sample size is computed before the actual study starts, it helps the reader assess the expected change in the outcome variables and the number of subjects needed to detect that change within a certain confidence range. Similarly, mentioning power calculation is a critical point to be mentioned in the Methods section.

6. Mention the ethical approval: If relevant, early in the Methods section mention whether your study was approved by the ethics committee or institutional review board, and whether you have received oral/ written informed consent from the patients or the guardians.

7. Specify the variables : Clearly mention not only the control variables, independent variables, dependent variables but also if there were any extraneous variables that might influence the result of your study. For example, in a tutorial on learning how to write ‘Research Methodology’, one group is provided with a traditional text while the other group is provided with an interactive online tool. However, if some participants already have prior knowledge of ‘how to write the Methods section’, this pre-knowledge will act as an extraneous variable.

8. Statistical analysis: In this section, describe all statistical tests, levels of significance, and software packages used to conduct the statistical analysis. You may also consult the biostatistician of your team to receive help to write this section . Don’t forget to indicate if the recommendations of a knowledgeable and experienced statistician were considered. Finally, it is important to provide the justification of the preferred statistical method used in the study. For example, why the author is using a one-tailed or two-tailed analysis.

1. Do not describe well-known methods in detail: For the sake of brevity, avoid listing the details of the experiments that are widely used or already published in numerous articles in your field of research. Instead, mention and cite the specific experiment and mention that the referred process was followed. However, if you have modified the standard process to meet the specific aim of your study, do describe the modifications and the reasons for those in sufficient detail.

2. Do not provide unnecessary details: Avoid unnecessary details that are not relevant to the result of the experiment. For example, you need not mention trivial details such as the color of the bucket that held the ice. Try to stick only to the details that are relevant and have an impact on your study.

3. Do not discuss the pros and cons of other methods: While it may be tempting to discuss the reasons why you did not use a particular method or how your chosen method is superior to others, save these details for the Discussion section. Utilize the Methods section only to mention the details of the methods you chose.

To summarize all the tips stated above, the Methods section of an ideal manuscript aims to share the scientific knowledge with transparency and also establishes the robustness of the study. I hope that this article helps you to reach the goal of writing a perfect manuscript!

The correct way to report p values

How to choose the research methodology best suited for your study

Planning to Write

Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through…

How to write the Methods section of a research paper 8 min read

10 Tips on how to write an effective research grant proposal 9 min read

11 Commonly confused elements of a research paper 16 min read

Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through your paper 6 min read

4 Step approach to writing the Introduction section of a research paper 10 min read

Recent Searches

Review paper
Responding to reviewer comments
Predatory publishers
Scope and delimitations
Open access
Plagiarism in research
Journal selection tips
Editor assigned
Types of articles
"Reject and Resubmit" status
Decision in process
Conflict of interest

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the methods section of a research paper ?

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

Why is the methods section important?

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

Structure of methods section of a research paper

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

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

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

How to write the methods section of a research paper

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

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

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

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

What to include in the methods section of a research paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Top 10 High Impact Factor Journals

Essay Writing Basics: Strategies for PhD Success

Editorial Manager, our manuscript submissions site will be unavailable between 12pm April 5, 2024 and 12pm April 8 2024 (Pacific Standard Time). We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

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

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

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

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

Why Methods Matter

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

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

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

What to include in your methods section

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

A constant principle of rigorous science

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

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

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

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

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

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

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

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

Ethical Considerations

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

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Writing tips

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

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

Don’t

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

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

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

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

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

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

Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Groups of Research Methods

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

The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II. Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

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

ANOTHER NOTE : If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE : If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III. Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

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

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

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

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

<< Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Next: Qualitative Methods >>
Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 1:19 PM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Affiliate Program

UNITED STATES
台灣 (TAIWAN)
TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
Academic Editing Services
- Research Paper
- Journal Manuscript
- Dissertation
- College & University Assignments
Admissions Editing Services
- Application Essay
- Personal Statement
- Recommendation Letter
- Cover Letter
- CV/Resume
Business Editing Services
- Business Documents
- Report & Brochure
- Website & Blog
Writer Editing Services
- Script & Screenplay
Our Editors
Client Reviews
Editing & Proofreading Prices
Wordvice Points
Partner Discount
Plagiarism Checker
APA Citation Generator
MLA Citation Generator
Chicago Citation Generator
Vancouver Citation Generator
- APA Style
- MLA Style
- Chicago Style
- Vancouver Style
Writing & Editing Guide
Academic Resources
Admissions Resources

How to Write a Methods Section for a Research Paper

A common piece of advice for authors preparing their first journal article for publication is to start with the methods section: just list everything that was done and go from there. While that might seem like a very practical approach to a first draft, if you do this without a clear outline and a story in mind, you can easily end up with journal manuscript sections that are not logically related to each other.

Since the methods section constitutes the core of your paper, no matter when you write it, you need to use it to guide the reader carefully through your story from beginning to end without leaving questions unanswered. Missing or confusing details in this section will likely lead to early rejection of your manuscript or unnecessary back-and-forth with the reviewers until eventual publication. Here, you will find some useful tips on how to make your methods section the logical foundation of your research paper.

Not just a list of experiments and methods

While your introduction section provides the reader with the necessary background to understand your rationale and research question (and, depending on journal format and your personal preference, might already summarize the results), the methods section explains what exactly you did and how you did it. The point of this section is not to list all the boring details just for the sake of completeness. The purpose of the methods sections is to enable the reader to replicate exactly what you did, verify or corroborate your results, or maybe find that there are factors you did not consider or that are more relevant than expected.

To make this section as easy to read as possible, you must clearly connect it to the information you provide in the introduction section before and the results section after, it needs to have a clear structure (chronologically or according to topics), and you need to present your results according to the same structure or topics later in the manuscript. There are also official guidelines and journal instructions to follow and ethical issues to avoid to ensure that your manuscript can quickly reach the publication stage.

Table of Contents:

General Methods Structure: What is Your Story?
What Methods Should You Report (and Leave Out)?
Details Frequently Missing from the Methods Section

More Journal Guidelines to Consider

Accurate and Appropriate Language in the Methods

General Methods Section Structure: What Is Your Story?

You might have conducted a number of experiments, maybe also a pilot before the main study to determine some specific factors or a follow-up experiment to clarify unclear details later in the process. Throwing all of these into your methods section, however, might not help the reader understand how everything is connected and how useful and appropriate your methodological approach is to investigate your specific research question. You therefore need to first come up with a clear outline and decide what to report and how to present that to the reader.

The first (and very important) decision to make is whether you present your experiments chronologically (e.g., Experiment 1, Experiment 2, Experiment 3… ), and guide the reader through every step of the process, or if you organize everything according to subtopics (e.g., Behavioral measures, Structural imaging markers, Functional imaging markers… ). In both cases, you need to use clear subheaders for the different subsections of your methods, and, very importantly, follow the same structure or focus on the same topics/measures in the results section so that the reader can easily follow along (see the two examples below).

If you are in doubt which way of organizing your experiments is better for your study, just ask yourself the following questions:

Does the reader need to know the timeline of your study?
Is it relevant that one experiment was conducted first, because the outcome of this experiment determined the stimuli or factors that went into the next?
Did the results of your first experiment leave important questions open that you addressed in an additional experiment (that was maybe not planned initially)?
Is the answer to all of these questions “no”? Then organizing your methods section according to topics of interest might be the more logical choice.

If you think your timeline, protocol, or setup might be confusing or difficult for the reader to grasp, consider adding a graphic, flow diagram, decision tree, or table as a visual aid.

What Methods Should You Report (and Leave Out)?

The answer to this question is quite simple–you need to report everything that another researcher needs to know to be able to replicate your study. Just imagine yourself reading your methods section in the future and trying to set up the same experiments again without prior knowledge. You would probably need to ask questions such as:

Where did you conduct your experiments (e.g., in what kind of room, under what lighting or temperature conditions, if those are relevant)?
What devices did you use? Are there specific settings to report?
What specific software (and version of that software) did you use?
How did you find and select your participants?
How did you assign participants into groups?
Did you exclude participants from the analysis? Why and how?
Where did your reagents or antibodies come from? Can you provide a Research Resource Identifier (RRID) ?
Did you make your stimuli yourself or did you get them from somewhere?
Are the stimuli you used available for other researchers?
What kind of questionnaires did you use? Have they been validated?
How did you analyze your data? What level of significance did you use?
Were there any technical issues and did you have to adjust protocols?

Note that for every experimental detail you provide, you need to tell the reader (briefly) why you used this type of stimulus/this group of participants/these specific amounts of reagents. If there is earlier published research reporting the same methods, cite those studies. If you did pilot experiments to determine those details, describe the procedures and the outcomes of these experiments. If you made assumptions about the suitability of something based on the literature and common practice at your institution, then explain that to the reader.

In a nutshell, established methods need to be cited, and new methods need to be clearly described and briefly justified. However, if the fact that you use a new approach or a method that is not traditionally used for the data or phenomenon you study is one of the main points of your study (and maybe already reflected in the title of your article), then you need to explain your rationale for doing so in the introduction already and discuss it in more detail in the discussion section .

Note that you also need to explain your statistical analyses at the end of your methods section. You present the results of these analyses later, in the results section of your paper, but you need to show the reader in the methods section already that your approach is either well-established or valid, even if it is new or unusual.

When it comes to the question of what details you should leave out, the answer is equally simple ‒ everything that you would not need to replicate your study in the future. If the educational background of your participants is listed in your institutional database but is not relevant to your study outcome, then don’t include that. Other things you should not include in the methods section:

Background information that you already presented in the introduction section.
In-depth comparisons of different methods ‒ these belong in the discussion section.
Results, unless you summarize outcomes of pilot experiments that helped you determine factors for your main experiment.

Also, make sure your subheadings are as clear as possible, suit the structure you chose for your methods section, and are in line with the target journal guidelines. If you studied a disease intervention in human participants, then your methods section could look similar to this:

Since the main point of interest here are your patient-centered outcome variables, you would center your results section on these as well and choose your headers accordingly (e.g., Patient characteristics, Baseline evaluation, Outcome variable 1, Outcome variable 2, Drop-out rate ).

If, instead, you did a series of visual experiments investigating the perception of faces including a pilot experiment to create the stimuli for your actual study, you would need to structure your methods section in a very different way, maybe like this:

Since here the analysis and outcome of the pilot experiment are already described in the methods section (as the basis for the main experimental setup and procedure), you do not have to mention it again in the results section. Instead, you could choose the two main experiments to structure your results section ( Discrimination and classification, Familiarization and adaptation ), or divide the results into all your test measures and/or potential interactions you described in the methods section (e.g., Discrimination performance, Classification performance, Adaptation aftereffects, Correlation analysis ).

Details Commonly Missing from the Methods Section

Manufacturer information.

For laboratory or technical equipment, you need to provide the model, name of the manufacturer, and company’s location. The usual format for these details is the product name (company name, city, state) for US-based manufacturers and the product name (company name, city/town, country) for companies outside the US.

Sample size and power estimation

Power and sample size estimations are measures for how many patients or participants are needed in a study in order to detect statistical significance and draw meaningful conclusions from the results. Outside of the medical field, studies are sometimes still conducted with a “the more the better” approach in mind, but since many journals now ask for those details, it is better to not skip this important step.

Ethical guidelines and approval

In addition to describing what you did, you also need to assure the editor and reviewers that your methods and protocols followed all relevant ethical standards and guidelines. This includes applying for approval at your local or national ethics committee, providing the name or location of that committee as well as the approval reference number you received, and, if you studied human participants, a statement that participants were informed about all relevant experimental details in advance and signed consent forms before the start of the study. For animal studies, you usually need to provide a statement that all procedures included in your research were in line with the Declaration of Helsinki. Make sure you check the target journal guidelines carefully, as these statements sometimes need to be placed at the end of the main article text rather than in the method section.

Structure & word limitations

While many journals simply follow the usual style guidelines (e.g., APA for the social sciences and psychology, AMA for medical research) and let you choose the headers of your method section according to your preferred structure and focus, some have precise guidelines and strict limitations, for example, on manuscript length and the maximum number of subsections or header levels. Make sure you read the instructions of your target journal carefully and restructure your method section if necessary before submission. If the journal does not give you enough space to include all the details that you deem necessary, then you can usually submit additional details as “supplemental” files and refer to those in the main text where necessary.

Standardized checklists

In addition to ethical guidelines and approval, journals also often ask you to submit one of the official standardized checklists for different study types to ensure all essential details are included in your manuscript. For example, there are checklists for randomized clinical trials, CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) , cohort, case-control, cross‐sectional studies, STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology ), diagnostic accuracy, STARD (STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies) , systematic reviews and meta‐analyses PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses) , and Case reports, CARE (CAse REport) .

Make sure you check if the manuscript uses a single- or double-blind review procedure , and delete all information that might allow a reviewer to guess where the authors are located from the manuscript text if necessary. This means that your method section cannot list the name and location of your institution, the names of researchers who conducted specific tests, or the name of your institutional ethics committee.

Accurate and Appropriate Language in the Methods Section

Like all sections of your research paper, your method section needs to be written in an academic tone . That means it should be formal, vague expressions and colloquial language need to be avoided, and you need to correctly cite all your sources. If you describe human participants in your method section then you should be especially careful about your choice of words. For example, “participants” sounds more respectful than “subjects,” and patient-first language, that is, “patients with cancer,” is considered more appropriate than “cancer patients” by many journals.

Passive voice is often considered the standard for research papers, but it is completely fine to mix passive and active voice, even in the method section, to make your text as clear and concise as possible. Use the simple past tense to describe what you did, and the present tense when you refer to diagrams or tables. Have a look at this article if you need more general input on which verb tenses to use in a research paper .

Lastly, make sure you label all the standard tests and questionnaires you use correctly (look up the original publication when in doubt) and spell genes and proteins according to the common databases for the species you studied, such as the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee database for human studies .

Visit Wordvice AI’s AI Text Editor to receive a free grammar check and English editing services (including manuscript editing , paper editing , and dissertation editing ) before submitting your manuscript to journal editors.

Link to facebook
Link to linkedin
Link to twitter
Link to youtube
Writing Tips

How to Write the Methods Section of an APA Paper

3-minute read

23rd December 2021

If you’re a researcher writing an APA paper , you’ll need to include a Methods section. This part explains the methods you used to conduct your experiment or research study and is always written in the past tense.

It’s crucial that you include all the relevant information here because other researchers will use this section to recreate your study, as well as judge how valid and accurate your results are.

In this guide, we’ll show you how to write a clear and comprehensive Methods section for your research paper.

Structuring the Methods Section

This section of an APA paper is typically split into three subsections under the following subheadings:

Participants —who took part in the experiment and why?
Materials —what tools did you use to conduct the experiment?
Procedure —what steps were involved in the experiment?

If necessary, you may add further subsections. Different institutions have specific rules on what subsections should be included (for example, some universities require a “Design” subsection), so make sure to check your institution’s requirements before you start writing your Methods section.

Writing the Participants Subsection

In this first subsection, you will need to identify the participants of your experiment or study. You should include:

● How many people took part, and how many were assigned to the experimental condition

● How they were selected for participation

● Any relevant demographic information (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity)

You’ll also need to address whether any restrictions were placed on who was selected and if any incentives were offered to encourage participants to take part.

Writing the Materials Subsection

In this subsection, you should address the materials, equipment, measures, and stimuli used in the study. These might include technology and computer software, tools such as questionnaires and psychological assessments, and, if relevant, the physical setting where the study took place.

You’ll need to describe specialist equipment in detail, especially if it has a niche purpose. However, you don’t need to provide specific information about common or standard equipment (e.g., the type of computer on which participants completed a survey) unless it’s relevant to the experiment.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

In addition, you don’t need to explain a material in depth if it’s well known within your field, such as a famous psychological assessment. Instead, you can provide a citation referring to that material.

If any materials were designed specifically for the experiment, such as a questionnaire, you’ll need to provide such materials in the appendix .

Writing the Procedure Subsection

The procedure subsection should describe what you had participants do in a step-by-step format. It should be detailed but concise and will typically include:

● A summary of the instructions given to participants (as well as any information that was intentionally withheld)

● A description of how participants in different conditions were treated

● How long each step of the process took

● How participants were debriefed or dismissed at the end of the experiment

After detailing the steps of the experiment, you should then address the methods you used to collect and analyze data.

Proofreading Your Methods Section

Because the Methods section of your paper will help other researchers understand and recreate your experiment, you’ll want your writing to be at its best.

Our expert research paper proofreaders can help your research get the recognition it deserves by making sure your work is clear, concise, and error-free. Why not try our services for free by submitting a trial document ?

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

What is a content editor.

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

The Plagiarism Checker Online For Your Academic Work

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

Academic essay overview
The writing process
Structuring academic essays
Types of academic essays
Academic writing overview
Sentence structure
Academic writing process
Improving your academic writing
Titles and headings
APA style overview
APA citation & referencing
APA structure & sections
Citation & referencing
Structure and sections
APA examples overview
Commonly used citations
Other examples
British English vs. American English
Chicago style overview
Chicago citation & referencing
Chicago structure & sections
Chicago style examples
Citing sources overview
Citation format
Citation examples
College essay overview
Application
How to write a college essay
Types of college essays
Commonly confused words
Definitions
Dissertation overview
Dissertation structure & sections
Dissertation writing process
Graduate school overview
Application & admission
Study abroad
Master degree
Harvard referencing overview
Language rules overview
Grammatical rules & structures
Parts of speech
Punctuation
Methodology overview
Analyzing data
Experiments
Observations
Inductive vs. Deductive
Qualitative vs. Quantitative
Types of validity
Types of reliability
Sampling methods
Theories & Concepts
Types of research studies
Types of variables
MLA style overview
MLA examples
MLA citation & referencing
MLA structure & sections
Plagiarism overview
Plagiarism checker
Types of plagiarism
Printing production overview
Research bias overview
Types of research bias
Example sections
Types of research papers
Research process overview
Problem statement
Research proposal
Research topic
Statistics overview
Levels of measurment
Frequency distribution
Measures of central tendency
Measures of variability
Hypothesis testing
Parameters & test statistics
Types of distributions
Correlation
Effect size
Hypothesis testing assumptions
Types of ANOVAs
Types of chi-square
Statistical data
Statistical models
Spelling mistakes
Tips overview
Academic writing tips
Dissertation tips
Sources tips
Working with sources overview
Evaluating sources
Finding sources
Including sources
Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Plagiarism Check within 10min

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

APA Methods Section – How To Write It With Examples

How do you like this article cancel reply.

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

The APA methods section is a very important part of your academic paper, displaying how you conducted your research by providing a precise description of the methods and procedures you used for the study. This section ensures transparency, allowing other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your experiments. In APA style , the methods section usually includes subsections on participants, materials or measures, and procedures. This article discusses the APA methods section in detail.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1 APA Methods Section – In a Nutshell
2 Definition: APA Methods Section
3 APA Methods Section: Structure
4 APA Methods Section: Participants
5 APA Methods Section: Materials
6 APA Methods Section: Procedure

APA Methods Section – In a Nutshell

The APA methods section covers the participants, materials, and procedures.
Under the ‘Participants’ heading of the APA methods section, you should state the relevant demographic characteristics of your participants.
Accurately reporting the facts of the study can help other researchers determine how much the results can be generalized.

Definition: APA Methods Section

The APA methods section describes the procedures you used to carry out your research and explains why particular processes were selected. It allows other researchers to replicate the study and make their own conclusions on the validity of the experiment.

APA Methods Section: Structure

The main heading of the APA methods section should be written in bold and should be capitalized. It also has to be centered.
All subheadings should be aligned to the left and must be boldfaced. You should select subheadings that are suitable for your essay, and the most commonly used include ‘Participants’, ‘Materials’, and ‘Procedure’.

Heading formats:

APA format has certain requirements for reporting different research designs. You should go through these guidelines to determine what you should mention for research using longitudinal designs , replication studies, and experimental designs .

APA Methods Section: Participants

Under this subheading, you will have to report on the sample characteristics, the procedures used to collect samples, and the sample size selected.

Subject or Participant Characteristics

In academic studies, ‘participants’ refers to the people who take part in a study. If animals are used instead of human beings, the researcher can use the term ‘subjects’. In this subheading of the APA methods section, you have to describe the demographic characteristics of the participants, including their age, sex, race, ethnic group, education level, and gender identity. Depending on the nature of the study, other characteristics may be important. Some of these include:

Education levels
Language preference
Immigration status

By describing the characteristics of the participants, readers will be able to determine how much the results can be generalized. Make sure you use bias-free language when writing this part of the APA methods section.

The study included 100 homosexual men and 100 homosexual women aged between 30 and 50 years from the city of London, UK.

Sampling Procedures

When selecting participants for your study, you will have to use certain sampling procedures. If the study could access all members of the population, you can say that you used random sampling methods. This section of the APA methods section should cover the percentage of respondents who participated in the research, and how they were chosen. You also need to state how participants were compensated and the ethical standard followed.

Transgender male students from London were invited to participate in a study.
Invites were sent to the students via email, social media posts, and posters in the schools.
Each participant received $10 for the time spent in the study.
The research obtained ethical approval before the participants were recruited.

Sample Size and Statistical Power

In this part of the APA methods section, you should give details on the sample size and statistical power you aimed at achieving. You should mention whether the final sample was the same as the intended sample. This section should show whether your research had enough statistical power to find any effects.

The study aimed at a statistical power of 75% to detect an effect of 10% with an alpha of .05.
200 participants were required, and the study fulfilled these conditions.

APA Methods Section: Materials

Readers also need to know the materials you used for the study. This part of the APA methods section will give other researchers a good picture of the methods used to conduct the study.

Primary and secondary measures

Here, you should indicate the instruments used in the study, as well as the constructs they were meant to measure. Some of these are inventories, scales, tests, software, and hardware. Make sure you cover the following aspects:

Reliability
The Traumatic Stress Schedule (TSS) was used to measure the exposure to traumatic events.
This 10-item chart requires participants to report lifelong exposure to traumatic stress.
For example, they could indicate whether they suffered the traumatic death of a loved one.
The Davidson Trauma Scale was also used to assess the symptoms of trauma.

Under this subheading of the APA methods section, you should also mention covariates or additional variables that can explain the outcomes.

Quality of measurements

You can mention the strategies you applied to ensure data integrity and reliability. These may include:

Training the interviewers
Establishing clear data nominalization procedures
Rigorous data handling and analysis processes
Having multiple people assess the data

If the data was subjectively coded, you should indicate the interrater reliability scores in the APA methods section.

✓ Post a picture on Instagram
✓ Get the most likes on your picture
✓ Receive up to $300 cash back

APA Methods Section: Procedure

This part of the APA methods section indicates the methods you used to carry out the research, process the data, and analyze the results.

Research Design and Data Collection Methods

Data collection is the systematic gathering of observations and measurements, and you have to describe all procedures used in this process. You can use supplementary materials to describe long and complicated data collection methods.

When reporting the research design, you should mention the framework of the study. This could be experimental, longitudinal, correlational, or descriptive. Additionally, you should mention whether you used a between-subjects design or within-subjects design .

In this part of the APA methods section, you should also mention whether any masking methods were used to hide condition assignments from the participants.

Participants are told the research takes an hour covers their personal experiences in school.
They were assured that the reports would be confidential and were asked to give consent.
The participants were asked to fill in questionnaires .
The control group was given an unrelated filler task, after which they filled a questionnaire.
It was determined the experiences of homosexual and CIS-gendered students varied.

Data diagnostics

This part of the APA method section outlines the steps taken to process the data. It includes:

Methods of identifying and controlling outliers
Data transformation procedures
Methods of compensating for missing values

Analytic strategies

This subheading of the APA methods section describes the analytic strategies used, but you shouldn’t mention the outcomes. The primary and secondary hypotheses use past studies or theoretical frameworks , while exploratory hypotheses focus on the data in the study.

We started by assessing the demographic differences between the two groups. We also performed an independent samples t-test on the test scores .

What are the parts of an APA methods section?

In this section, you should include the study participants, the methods used, and the procedures.

What is included in the APA methods section?

The methods section covers the participants or subject characteristics, the sampling procedures, the sample size, the measures used, the data collection methods, the research design, the data analysis strategy, and the data processing method.

Should I use the Oxford comma when writing the APA methods section?

Yes, the serial comma is required when writing the APA methods section.

Should I use the first person to write the APA methods section?

Yes, the APA language guidelines encourage researchers to use first-person pronouns when writing the methods section.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Research Paper Writing Guides

Research Paper Methods Section

Last updated on: Mar 27, 2024

How To Write The Methods Section of A Research Paper

By: Donna C.

11 min read

Reviewed By: Rylee W.

Published on: Jan 5, 2024

Incorporating the methods section when writing a research paper can be overwhelming. It's also very important to prioritize clarity in this complex process of your research.

But worry not!

In this guide, we will simplify the process of writing the method section of your research paper.

By the end of this guide, you will have a better understanding of different parts of the methods section of a research paper, as well as how to craft them perfectly.

So, let’s dive right into it!

On this Page

What is the Methods Section of A Research Paper?

The methods section of a research paper serves as the blueprint for conducting and replicating a study.

It is a detailed section that outlines how the research was executed, providing readers with a clear understanding of the procedures followed.

Importance of Methods Section in Research Paper

The methods section in a research paper goes beyond a simple list of steps; it serves as the backbone for the credibility and integrity of scientific work.

This essential part explains how a study was carried out, guiding others to verify and replicate the research.

Let's break down why methods matter:

Transparency: By openly sharing your research process, you demonstrate honesty and allow readers to assess the validity of your research paper conclusions .
Validity and Reliability: A well-crafted methods section enhances the validity and reliability of your study. It establishes the foundation for drawing accurate conclusions, strengthening the overall impact of your research.
Ethical Considerations: Methods also encompass ethical guidelines followed during the study. Addressing ethical concerns ensures the responsible conduct of research, upholding the integrity of both the study and the researcher.

Understanding the importance of methods is crucial for producing research that withstands transparency and contributes meaningfully to the scientific community.

5 Parts of the Method Section of a Research Paper and their Writing Tips

The methods section of a research paper consists of several important parts. Each part is like a building block, contributing to the strength and reliability of your study.

Let’s explore these parts and learn how to write the materials and methods section of a research paper:

Part 1: Participants

This section provides a clear description of the individuals or subjects involved in your study. It includes details such as demographics, sample size, selection criteria, and any relevant characteristics.

How to Write the Participants Section

Follow these steps to convey information about your participants effectively:

Define Your Population: Clearly identify the population your study focuses on. Specify any inclusion or exclusion criteria that define your participant group.
Demographic Details: Include relevant demographic information such as age, gender, and any other characteristics that are pertinent to your research.
Sample Size and Selection Criteria: Clearly state the number of participants in your study and describe how they were selected. Whether it's random sampling or a specific recruitment process, provide transparency.
Relevant Characteristics: If certain characteristics are crucial to your study (e.g., experience with a subject matter), outline them. This ensures a well-defined and representative sample.

Part 2: Materials and Instruments

Here, the tools, equipment, or instruments used for data collection are outlined. Whether it's specialized machinery, surveys, or questionnaires, this section provides insight into the sources.

How to Write the Materials and Instruments Section

Crafting the materials and instruments section requires precision in detailing the tools used for data collection. Here's a brief guide on how to write this section effectively:

List Materials Clearly: Start by listing all materials, equipment, or instruments used in your study. Provide specific details about each, including make, model, and any modifications.
Purpose and Role: Clearly explain the purpose and role of each material or instrument in your research. Specify how they contribute to data collection or experimental procedures.
Insight into Resources: Offer insight into the resources employed, whether it's specialized machinery, surveys, or questionnaires. Detail their significance in gathering relevant data.

Part 3: Procedures

This section consists of the step-by-step procedure outline followed during the study. It clarifies the methodology, offering transparency in the research workflow.

How to Write the Procedure Section of a Research Paper

Writing the procedures section involves outlining the step-by-step process followed during your study.

Introduction and Familiarization: Begin by introducing the initial steps, such as introductory sessions or participant familiarization. Explain how these steps set the stage for the rest of the study.
Sequential Outline: Provide a sequential outline of the procedures followed. Clearly articulate each step, making it easy for readers to follow the chronological order of your study.
Controlled Environments: If your study involves controlled environments or conditions, describe them. Highlight any factors that could influence the outcomes.
Consistent Data Collection: Emphasize the consistency in data collection procedures. Detail how you scheduled sessions at regular intervals to minimize external influences.

Part 4: Data Analysis

This segment explains how the collected data were processed and analyzed. Whether statistical methods, software, or specific calculations were used, it sheds light on the analytical aspect of the study.

How to Write the Data Analysis Section

Explaining how you processed and analyzed data is crucial for the transparency of your study. Follow these steps when writing the data analysis section:

Data Entry and Software: Clearly explain how collected data were entered into a system. Specify the software or tools used for data analysis, such as SPSS, Excel, etc.
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics: Distinguish between descriptive and inferential statistics. Clearly state which statistical methods were used and why. Provide an overview of the calculations performed.
Quantitative Variables: If dealing with quantitative variables, explain the calculations made, such as mean and standard deviation. Clearly outline the rationale behind using specific statistical measures.

Part 5: Ethical Considerations

Addressing ethical considerations is crucial.

This part outlines how participant rights were safeguarded, detailing ethical approvals obtained and ensuring transparency in the ethical conduct of the research.

How to Write the Ethical Considerations Section

Addressing ethical considerations is fundamental in ensuring the responsible conduct of research. Follow these steps to write the ethical considerations section:

Ethical Approval: Clearly state if your study received ethical approval from a relevant review board. Include the name of the board and any reference numbers.
Informed Consent: Detail the process of obtaining informed consent from participants. Clearly explain how participants were briefed on the study, emphasizing confidentiality and anonymity.
Voluntary Participation: Emphasize the voluntary nature of participants' involvement. Clearly state their right to withdraw at any stage without facing consequences.
Transparency: Ensure transparency in describing how participant rights were safeguarded throughout the study. Clearly articulate any measures taken to protect confidentiality.

Understanding the significance of each element within the methods section is important for researchers and readers alike.

It not only enhances the credibility of the study but also validates your research.

How To Write The Methods Section of A Research Paper - Example

The methods section is not just a list of steps; it's like telling a story of how a study happens.

Let’s take a look at some samples to learn how to explain the methods clearly.

Sample Methods Section Of Research Paper Template

Methods Section Of Research Paper APA

Statistical Analysis Methods Section Example

Methods Section Of A Qualitative Research Paper

Tips for Writing the Methods Section of a Research Paper

Explore these do’s and don’t of creating a comprehensive method section:

Wrapping up, this blog is your go-to guide for creating a standout methods section. It shows you how to explain things clearly, whether it's about people in your study, the tools you used, or the steps you followed.

However, if you still feel overwhelmed by the process of creating the method section for your research paper, ask for help from the top paper writing service online!

At Sharkpapers.com, we understand your research paper struggles. That’s why our expert researchers help you craft an outstanding paper that contributes to the existing study.

So, don’t waste time! Place your order with the best paper writing service online today!

Frequently Asked Questions

How to write a method for an experiment.

To write a method for an experiment: list materials and steps clearly, specify variables and data collection, and conclude with expected results. Keep it simple and easy to read.

How to Write the Measures Section of A Research Paper?

To write the Measures section:

Describe tools and variables
Explain operationalization
Scale details, reliability, validity, pilot testing, and scoring
Ensures clarity and replicability.

What Are The 5 Elements of The Method Section of A Research Paper?

The main elements of method section of a research paper includes:

Research Design
Participants
Measures or Instruments
Data Analysis

Donna writes on a broad range of topics, but she is mostly passionate about social issues, current events, and human-interest stories. She has received high praise for her writing from both colleagues and readers alike. Donna is known in her field for creating content that is not only professional but also captivating.

Was This Blog Helpful?

Keep reading.

Learning How to Write a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide

Best 300+ Ideas For Research Paper Topics in 2024

A Complete Guide to Help You Write a Research Proposal

The Definitive Guide on How to Start a Research Paper

How To Write An Introduction For A Research Paper - A Complete Guide

Learn How To Write An Abstract For A Research Paper with Examples and Tips

How to Write a Literature Review for a Research Paper | A Complete Guide

How to Write a Research Paper Thesis: A Detailed Guide

How to Write a Research Paper Title That Stands Out

A Detailed Guide on How To Write a Conclusion for a Research Paper

How To Write The Results Section of A Research Paper | Steps & Tips

How to Problem Statement for a Research Paper: An Easy Guide

How to Find Credible Sources for a Research Paper

A Detailed Guide: How to Write a Discussion for a Research Paper

How To Write A Hypothesis In A Research Paper - A Simple Guide

Learn How To Cite A Research Paper in Different Formats: The Basics

The Ultimate List of Ethical Research Paper Topics in 2024

150+ Controversial Research Paper Topics to Get You Started

How to Edit Research Papers With Precision: A Detailed Guide

A Comprehensive List of Argumentative Research Paper Topics

A Detailed List of Amazing Art Research Paper Topics

Diverse Biology Research Paper Topics for Students: A Comprehensive List

230 Interesting and Unique History Research Paper Topics

190 Best Business Research Paper Topics

200+ Engaging and Novel Literature Research Paper Topics

A Guide on How to Write a Social Science Research

Sociology Research Papers: Format, Outline, and Topics

Understanding the Basics of Biology Research Papers

How to Write a Psychology Research Paper: Guide with Easy Steps

Exploring the Different Types of Research Papers: A Guide

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us

Your phone no.
Confirm Password
I have read Privacy Policy and agree to the Terms and Conditions .

FORGOT PASSWORD

SEND PASSWORD

How to write the methods section of a research paper

Affiliation.

1 Respiratory Care Services, San Francisco General Hospital, NH:GA-2, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA. [email protected]
PMID: 15447808

The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study's validity is judged. Therefore, it requires a clear and precise description of how an experiment was done, and the rationale for why specific experimental procedures were chosen. The methods section should describe what was done to answer the research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental design, and explain how the results were analyzed. Scientific writing is direct and orderly. Therefore, the methods section structure should: describe the materials used in the study, explain how the materials were prepared for the study, describe the research protocol, explain how measurements were made and what calculations were performed, and state which statistical tests were done to analyze the data. Once all elements of the methods section are written, subsequent drafts should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and logically as possibly. The description of preparations, measurements, and the protocol should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. Material in each section should be organized by topic from most to least important.

Biomedical Research*
Research Design
Writing* / standards

How to Write the Methods Section of a Scientific Article

What Is the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

The Methods section of a research article includes an explanation of the procedures used to conduct the experiment. For authors of scientific research papers, the objective is to present their findings clearly and concisely and to provide enough information so that the experiment can be duplicated.

Research articles contain very specific sections, usually dictated by either the target journal or specific style guides. For example, in the social and behavioral sciences, the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide is used to gather information on how the manuscript should be arranged . As with most styles, APA’s objectives are to ensure that manuscripts are written with minimum distractions to the reader. Every research article should include a detailed Methods section after the Introduction.

Why is the Methods Section Important?

The Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) is important because it provides the reader enough information to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Structure of the Methods Section in a Research Paper

While designing a research study, authors typically decide on the key points that they’re trying to prove or the “ cause-and-effect relationship ” between objects of the study. Very simply, the study is designed to meet the objective. According to APA, a Methods section comprises of the following three subsections: participants, apparatus, and procedure.

How do You Write a Method Section in Biology?

In biological sciences, the Methods section might be more detailed, but the objectives are the same—to present the study clearly and concisely so that it is understandable and can be duplicated.

If animals (including human subjects) were used in the study, authors should ensure to include statements that they were treated according to the protocols outlined to ensure that treatment is as humane as possible.

The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles developed by The World Medical Association to provide guidance to scientists and physicians in medical research involving human subjects.

Research conducted at an institution using human participants is overseen by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) with which it is affiliated. IRB is an administrative body whose purpose is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects during their participation in the study.

Literature Search

Literature searches are performed to gather as much information as relevant from previous studies. They are important for providing evidence on the topic and help validate the research. Most are accomplished using keywords or phrases to search relevant databases. For example, both MEDLINE and PubMed provide information on biomedical literature. Google Scholar, according to APA, is “one of the best sources available to an individual beginning a literature search.” APA also suggests using PsycINFO and refers to it as “the premier database for locating articles in psychological science and related literature.”

Authors must make sure to have a set of keywords (usually taken from the objective statement) to stay focused and to avoid having the search move far from the original objective. Authors will benefit by setting limiting parameters, such as date ranges, and avoiding getting pulled into the trap of using non-valid resources, such as social media, conversations with people in the same discipline, or similar non-valid sources, as references.

Related: Ready with your methods section and looking forward to manuscript submission ? Check these journal selection guidelines now!

What Should be Included in the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

One commonly misused term in research papers is “methodology.” Methodology refers to a branch of the Philosophy of Science which deals with scientific methods, not to the methods themselves, so authors should avoid using it. Here is the list of main subsections that should be included in the Methods section of a research paper ; authors might use subheadings more clearly to describe their research.

Literature search : Authors should cite any sources that helped with their choice of methods. Authors should indicate timeframes of past studies and their particular parameters.
Study participants : Authors should cite the source from where they received any non-human subjects. The number of animals used, the ages, sex, their initial conditions, and how they were housed and cared for, should be listed. In case of human subjects, authors should provide the characteristics, such as geographical location; their age ranges, sex, and medical history (if relevant); and the number of subjects. In case hospital records were used, authors should include the subjects’ basic health information and vital statistics at the beginning of the study. Authors should also state that written informed consent was provided by each subject.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria : Authors should describe their inclusion and exclusion criteria, how they were determined, and how many subjects were eliminated.
Group characteristics (could be combined with “Study participants”) : Authors should describe how the chosen group was divided into subgroups and their characteristics, including the control. Authors should also describe any specific equipment used, such as housing needs and feed (usually for animal studies). If patient records are reviewed and assessed, authors should mention whether the reviewers were blinded to them.
Procedures : Authors should describe their study design. Any necessary preparations (e.g., tissue samples, drugs) and instruments must be explained. Authors should describe how the subjects were “ manipulated to answer the experimental question .” Timeframes should be included to ensure that the procedures are clear (e.g., “Rats were given XX drug for 14 d”). For animals sacrificed, the methods used and the protocols followed should be outlined.
Statistical analyses: The type of data, how they were measured, and which statistical tests were performed, should be described. (Note: This is not the “results” section; any relevant tables and figures should be referenced later.) Specific software used must be cited.

What Should not be Included in Your Methods Section?

Common pitfalls can make the manuscript cumbersome to read or might make the readers question the validity of the research. The University of Southern California provides some guidelines .

Background information that is not helpful must be avoided.
Authors must avoid providing a lot of detail.
Authors should focus more on how their method was used to meet their objective and less on mechanics .
Any obstacles faced and how they were overcome should be described (often in your “Study Limitations”). This will help validate the results.

According to the University of Richmond , authors must avoid including extensive details or an exhaustive list of equipment that have been used as readers could quickly lose attention. These unnecessary details add nothing to validate the research and do not help the reader understand how the objective was satisfied. A well-thought-out Methods section is one of the most important parts of the manuscript. Authors must make a note to always prepare a draft that lists all parts, allow others to review it, and revise it to remove any superfluous information.

m so confused about ma research but now m okay so thank uh so mxh

Mil gracias por su ayuda.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

AI in Academia
Infographic
Manuscripts & Grants
Reporting Research
Trending Now

Can AI Tools Prepare a Research Manuscript From Scratch? — A comprehensive guide

As technology continues to advance, the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) tools can prepare…

difference between abstract and introduction

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

Ross wants to publish his research. Feeling positive about his research outcomes, he begins to…

Old Webinars
Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

Choosing research methodology Research design and methodology Evidence-based research approach How RAxter can assist researchers

Manuscript Preparation
Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

Successful research conduction requires proper planning and execution. While there are multiple reasons and aspects…

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

How To Write A Research Paper

Research Paper Methods Section

How To Write The Methods Section of a Research Paper Step-by-Step

13 min read

Published on: Mar 6, 2024

Last updated on: Mar 5, 2024

What is the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

The methods section of a research paper provides a detailed description of the procedures, techniques, and methods employed to conduct the study ( American Psychological Association, 2020 ). It outlines the steps taken to collect, analyze, and interpret data, allowing other researchers to replicate the study and assess the validity of the results.

This section includes information on the study design, participants, materials or apparatus used, data collection procedures, and statistical analyses. Typically, the methodology section is placed after the introduction and before the results section in a research paper.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Importance of Methods Section

The methods section of a research paper holds significant importance. Here is why:

Replicability: The methods section ensures the replicability of the study by providing a clear and comprehensive account of the procedures used.
Transparency: It enhances transparency, allowing other researchers to understand and evaluate the validity of the study's findings.
Credibility: A well-documented methods section enhances the credibility of the research, instilling confidence in the study's design and execution.
Guidance for Future Research: It serves as a guide for future research, offering insights into methodologies that can be applied or modified in similar studies.
Ethical Considerations: The section highlights ethical considerations, promoting responsible and accountable research practices.

Structure of Methods Section of a Research Paper

There are some important parts of the method section of a research paper that you will need to include, whether you have done an experimental study or a descriptive study.

Provided structured approach below ensures clarity and replicability of the research methodology:

Formatting of the Methods Section

Make the main " Methods " heading centered, bold, and capitalized. For subtopics under "Methods," like participant details or data collection, use left-aligned, bold, and title cases.

Feel free to include even sub-headings for more specifics. This formatting helps readers easily follow your study steps.

Next, we will address the most common query, i.e., how to write the methodology section of a research paper. Letâs explain the steps for writing the methodology section of a research paper:

Step 1: Start with Study Design

The initial step in the method section of a research paper is to provide a clear description of the study type. This involves outlining the overall plan and structure of the research.

Different types of studies, such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional, may be employed based on the research objectives.

For instance:

Starting with the study design sets the stage for understanding the methodology. It provides readers with a foundation for subsequent sections in the methods portion of the research paper.

Step 2: Describe Participants

In the methods section, the second step involves providing a detailed account of the participants involved in the study. Start by describing the characteristics of both human and non-human subjects, using clear and descriptive language.

Address specific demographic characteristics relevant to your study, such as age, sex, ethnic or racial group, gender identity, education level, and socioeconomic status. Clearly outlining these essential details ensures transparency, replicability, and a comprehensive understanding of the study's sample.

Sampling Procedures:

Clearly outline how participants were selected, specifying any inclusion and exclusion criteria applied.
Appropriately identify the sampling procedure used, such as random sampling, convenience sampling, or stratified sampling.
If applicable, note the percentage of invited participants who actually participated.
Specify if participants were self-selected or chosen by their institutions (e.g., schools submitting student data).

Sample Size and Power:

Detail the intended sample size estimation per condition and the statistical power aimed for in the study.
Provide information on any analyses conducted to determine the sample size and power.
Emphasize the importance of statistical power for detecting effects if present.
State whether the final sample size differed from the originally intended sample.
Base your interpretations of study outcomes solely on the final sample, reinforcing the importance of transparency in reporting.

Step 3: State Materials or Apparatus

In the third step, thoroughly describe the materials or apparatus used in your research. In addition, gives detailed information on the tools and techniques employed to measure relevant outcome variables.

Primary and Secondary Measures:

Clearly define both primary and secondary outcome measures aligned with research questions.
Specify all instruments used, citing hardware models, software versions, or references to manuals/articles.
Report settings of specialized apparatus, such as screen resolution.

Reliability and Validity:

For each instrument, detail measures of reliability and validity.
Include an explanation of how consistently (reliability) and precisely (validity) the method measures the targeted variables.
Provide examples or reference materials to illustrate the reliability and validity of tests, questionnaires, or interviews.

Covariates and Quality Assurance:

Describe any covariates considered and their relevance to explaining or predicting outcomes.
Review methods used to assure measurement quality, such as researcher training, multiple assessors, translation procedures, and pilot studies.
For subjectively coded data, report interrater reliability scores to gauge consistency among raters.

Step 4 Write the Procedure

Next is the procedure section of the research paper, which thoroughly details the procedures applied for administering the study, processing data, and planning data analyses.

Data Collection Methods and Research Design

Summarize data collection methods (e.g., surveys, tests) and the overall research design.
Provide detailed procedures for administering surveys, tests, or any other data collection instruments.
Clarify the research design framework, specifying whether it's experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive, correlational, and/or longitudinal.
For multi-group studies, report assignment methods, group instructions, interventions, and session details.

Data Analysis

Clearly state the planned data analysis methods for each research question or hypothesis.
Specify descriptive statistics, inferential statistical tests, and any other analysis techniques.
Include software or tools used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, R).
Provide a brief rationale for choosing each analysis method.

Step 5: Mention Ethical Approvals

In the fifth step of the methods section, explicitly address the ethical considerations of your research, ensuring transparency and adherence to ethical standards. Here are some key ethical considerations:

IRB Approval:

Clearly state that the research received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent ethical review body.

Informed Consent:

Specify the process of obtaining informed consent, including the provision of information sheets to participants.

Confidentiality:

Describe measures taken to maintain confidentiality, such as assigning unique identification numbers and securing data.

Participant Rights:

Emphasize participants' right to withdraw from the study at any point without consequences.

Debriefing:

Mention if debriefing procedures were implemented to address any participant concerns post-study.

Methods Section of Research Paper Examples

Exploring sample methodology sections is crucial when composing your first research paper, as it enhances your understanding of the structure. We provide PDF examples of methodology sections that you can review to gain inspiration for your own research paper.

Methods Section of A Qualitative Research Paper

Methods Section of Research Paper Template

Methods Section of Research Proposal Example

Methods Section of Research Paper APA

How To Write A Method For An Experiment

Journal Guidelines to Consider

When writing the methods section, be mindful of the specific guidelines set by your target journal. These guidelines can vary, impacting the structure, word limitations, and even the presentation of your methodology.

Here's a detailed explanation, along with an example:

Structure & Word Limitations

If a journal follows APA guidelines, it might allow flexibility in structuring the method section. However, some journals may impose strict limitations on the manuscript's length and the number of subsections.

For instance, a journal might specify a maximum of 3000 words for the entire paper and limit the method section to 500 words. In such cases, ensure you adhere to these constraints, potentially submitting supplemental files for additional details.

Standardized Checklists

Journals often request authors to use standardized checklists for various study types to ensure completeness.

For a randomized clinical trial, the CONSORT(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist might be required. If your research involves observational studies, the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist may be applicable.

For diagnostic accuracy studies, adherence to the STARD (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) checklist is common. These checklists serve as a systematic way to include essential details in your manuscript, aligning with the journal's preferred reporting standards.

Blind Review Procedures

Some journals implement single- or double-blind review procedures. If a double-blind review is in place, authors need to remove any information that might reveal their identity or institutional affiliations.

For instance, the method section cannot explicitly mention the institution's name, researchers' identities, or the institutional ethics committee. This ensures an unbiased evaluation of the research without reviewers being influenced by the authors' affiliations.

The Dos And Donâts Of Writing The Methods Section

While it's important to be thorough, certain elements are better suited for other sections of the paper. Here are some Doâs and Donâts of writing the methods section:

Dos of Writing the Methods Section

Here are what to include in the methods section:

Clarity and Precision: Clearly and concisely describe the procedures used in your study. Ensure that another researcher can replicate your work based on your explanation.
Chronological Order: Present the methods in a logical and chronological sequence. This helps readers follow the flow of your research.
Detail and Specificity: Provide sufficient detail to allow for replication. Specify equipment, materials, and procedures used, including any modifications.
Consistency with Study Design: Align your methods with the overall design of your study. Clearly state whether it's experimental, observational, or another design.
Inclusion of Participants: Detail participant characteristics, including demographics and any inclusion/exclusion criteria. Clearly state the sample size.
Operational Definitions: Define and operationalize key variables. Clearly explain how each variable was measured or manipulated.
Transparency in Data Collection: Describe the data collection process, including the timing, location, and any relevant protocols followed during the study.
Statistical Information: Outline the statistical methods used for analysis. Specify the software, tests employed and significance levels.
Ethical Considerations: Discuss ethical approvals obtained, informed consent procedures, and measures taken to ensure participant confidentiality. Address any potential conflicts of interest.

Don'ts of Writing the Methods Section

Extraneous Details: Unlike the discussion section avoid including unnecessary details or information that does not contribute directly to understanding the research methods.
Results Discussion: Refrain from discussing or interpreting the results in the methods section. Focus solely on describing the methods employed.
Ambiguity and Vagueness: Steer clear of vague or ambiguous language. Be precise and specific in your descriptions.
Overemphasis on Background: While some background information is relevant, avoid turning the methods section into an extensive literature review . Keep the focus on the research methods.
Personal Opinions: Do not include personal opinions or anecdotes. Stick to factual and objective descriptions.
Excessive Jargon: Minimize the use of technical jargon that may be confusing to readers who are not experts in your field. If necessary, provide clear explanations.
Inadequate Explanation of Modifications: If you deviate from standard procedures, clearly explain the modifications and justify why they were made.
Inconsistency with Design: Ensure that your methods align with the study design. Avoid inconsistencies that could create confusion for readers.

In conclusion , learning the art of writing the methods section is pivotal for any research paper. Following a step-by-step approach, from defining the study design to detailed data collection and analysis, ensures clarity and replicability.

Remember, precision matters. If you find yourself grappling with the intricacies of your methodology, don't hesitate to reach out to CollegeEssay.org.

Our professional writing service is ready to assist you in crafting a robust and well-structured methods section.

Connect with our research paper writing service for expert guidance and conquer the challenges of research paper writing.

Nova A. (Literature, Marketing)

As a Digital Content Strategist, Nova Allison has eight years of experience in writing both technical and scientific content. With a focus on developing online content plans that engage audiences, Nova strives to write pieces that are not only informative but captivating as well.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

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
Turk J Urol
v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article?

In contrast to past centuries, scientific researchers have been currently conducted systematically in all countries as part of an education strategy. As a consequence, scientists have published thousands of reports. Writing an effective article is generally a significant problem for researchers. All parts of an article, specifically the abstract, material and methods, results, discussion and references sections should contain certain features that should always be considered before sending a manuscript to a journal for publication. It is generally known that the material and methods section is a relatively easy section of an article to write. Therefore, it is often a good idea to begin by writing the materials and methods section, which is also a crucial part of an article. Because “reproducible results” are very important in science, a detailed account of the study should be given in this section. If the authors provide sufficient detail, other scientists can repeat their experiments to verify their findings. It is generally recommended that the materials and methods should be written in the past tense, either in active or passive voice. In this section, ethical approval, study dates, number of subjects, groups, evaluation criteria, exclusion criteria and statistical methods should be described sequentially. It should be noted that a well-written materials and methods section markedly enhances the chances of an article being published.

How to Write a Materials and Methods Section of a Scientific Article?

Up to the 18 th Century scientific researches were performed on a voluntary basis by certain scientists. However from the second half of the 19 th century, scientific development has gained momentum with the contributions of numerous scientists including Edison, Fleming, and Koch. In parallel with these developments, apparently each scientific field, and even their branches made, and still making magnificent progressions from the end of the 18 th century. Secondary to these developments, scientific researches have been implemented systematically by universities, and various institutions in every part of the world as an integral component of national strategies. Naturally, the number of researchers who performed scientific investigations or sponsored by various institutions increased considerably. Also, as is known very well, all over the world scientists, and researchers move from one place to another to disseminate scientific knowledge. All of these scientific efforts, and activities reflect on clinical practice, and hundreds of thousands, and millions scientific articles which we can currently gain access into all of them online. As indicated by the investigator Gerard Piel, “Without publication, science is dead” which explains the importance of publication. In other words, if you don’t share your investigation and knowledge, they don’t mean anything by themselves. Although sharing the knowledge is essential for writing a scientific paper, nowadays writing a scientific article is mostly learnt as a master-apprentice relationship, and therefore certain standards have not been established. This phenomenon creates serious stress especially for young investigators in their early stage of writing scientific papers. Indeed investigators receiving their residency training confront this reality finally during writing of their dissertations. Though sharing knowledge is known as a fundamental principle in writing a scientific paper, it creates difficulties in the whole world. Relevant to this issue, in the whole world investigations have been performed, and books have been written on the subject of how to write a scientific paper. Accordingly, in our country mostly local meetings, and courses have been organized. These organizations, and investigations should be performed. Indeed, nowadays, in the first assessments, the rejection rate of the journals by internationally acknowledged scientific indexes as “Science Citation İndex (SCI)” and “Science Citation İndex Expanded (SCI-extended” which have certain scientific standards, increases to 62 percent. As a matter of fact only 25% of Class A journals have been included in the lists of SCI, and SCI-extended.

As we all know very well, scientific articles consist of sections of summary, introduction, material, and methods, discussion, and references. Among them, conventionally Materials and Methods section has been reported as the most easily written or will be written section. Although it is known as the most easily written section, nearly 30% of the reasons for rejection are related to this section per se. Therefore due care, and attention should be given to the writing of this section. In the writing process of the ‘Material and Methods’ section, all achievements performed throughout the study period should be dealt with in consideration of certain criteria in a specific sequence. Since as a globally anticipated viewpoint, ‘Materials and Methods’ section can be written quite easily, it has been indicated that if difficulties are encountered in writing a manuscript, then one should start writing from this section. In writing this section, study design describing the type of the article, study subjects to be investigated, methods, and procedures of measurements should be provided under four main headings. [ 1 , 2 ] Accordingly, in brief, we can emphasize the importance of providing clear-cut, adequate, and detailed information in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section to the scientists who will read this scientific article. Meeting these criteria carries great importance with respect to the evaluation of reliability of the investigation by the readers, and reviewers, and also informing them about procedural method, design, data collection, and assessment methods of the investigation, Priorly, as is the case in all scientific investigations, one should be reminded about the importance, and indispensability of compliance with certain standard writing rules. Accordingly, rules of grammar should be obeyed, and if possible passive voice of simple past tense should be used. Related to these rules, use of verbs ‘investigated’, ‘evaluated’ or ‘performed’ will be appropriate. Recently, expressions showing the ownership of the investigation as ‘we performed’, ‘we evaluated’, ‘we implemented’ have taken priority. Since the important point is communication of the message contained in the scientific study, the message should be clearly comprehensible. While ensuring clarity of the message, use of flourishing, and irrelevant sentences should be avoided. [ 1 , 3 ] According to another approach, since our article will be read by professionals of other disciplines, it is important to comply with certain rules of writing. To that end, standard units of measurements, and international abbreviations should be used. Abbreviations should be explained within parentheses at their first mention in the manuscript. For instance let’s analyze the following sentence” The patients were evaluated with detailed medical history, physical examination, complete urinalysis, PSA, and urinary system ultrasound” The abbreviation PSA is very well known by the urologist. However we shouldn’t forget that this article will be read by the professionals in other medical disciplines. Similarly this sentence should not be written as: “The patients were evaluated with detailed medical history, physical examination, complete urinalysis PSA (prostate-specific antigen), and urinary system ultrasound.” Indeed the abbreviation should follow the explanation of this abbreviation. Then the appropriate expression of the sentence should be. “The patients were evaluated with detailed medical history, physical examination, complete urinalysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and urinary system ultrasound.”

In addition to the abovementioned information, in the beginning paragraphs of ‘Materials and Methods’ section of a clinical study the answers to the following questions should be absolutely provided:

The beginning, and termination dates of the study period.
Number of subjects/patients/experimental animals etc. enrolled in the study,
Has the approval of the ethics committee been obtained?
Study design (prospective, retrospective or other). [ 1 , 2 , 4 – 7 ]

Still additional features of the study design (cross-sectional) should be indicated. Apart from this, other types of study designs (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled or double-blind, parallel control etc.) should be revealed.

The heading of the section “Materials and Methods” can be changed to “Patients and the Method” in accordance with writing rules of the journal in question. Indication of starting, and termination dates of a clinical study will facilitate scientific interpretation of the article. Accordingly, outcomes obtained during development phase of a newly implemented method might be considered differently from those acquired during conventional use of this method. Besides, incidence of the diseases, and number of affected people might vary under the impact of social fluctuations, and environmental factors. Therefore with this justification study period should be specified. Number of cases included in the study should be absolutely indicated in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section. It will be appropriate to determine study population after consultation to a statistician-and if required-following “power analysis” Accordingly, the need for a control group will be indicated based on the study design. Nowadays, as a requirement of patient rights, obtainment of approval from ethics committee should be indicated with its registration number. In addition, acquirement of informed consent forms from patients should be indicated. Ethics Committee approval should be obtained in prospective studies performed with study drugs. Otherwise in case of occurrence of adverse effects, it should be acknowledged that in compliance with Article #90 of the Turkish Criminal Law, a 3-year prison sentence is given to the guilty parties. [ 8 ] Since issues related to the Ethics Committee are the subject of another manuscript, they won’t be handled herein.

The following paragraph exemplifies clearly the aforementioned arguments: “After approval of the local ethics committee (BADK-22), informed consent forms from the patients were obtained, and a total of 176 cases with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were retrospectively evaluated between January 2011, and December 2012.” In a prospectively designed study, methods used to communicate with the cases including face-to-face interviews, phone calls and/or e-mail should be indicated. [ 1 , 2 ] Each paragraph or subheading in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section should be in accordance with the related ones in the ‘Results’ section. In other words, the sequence of paragraphs, and subheadings in the ‘Results’ section should be the same in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.

As a next step, names of the groups, and distribution of the cases in these groups should be indicated. For instance: the statement “Cases were divided into 3 groups based on their LUTS scores as. Groups 1 (0–9; n=91), 2 (10–18; n=66), and 3 (≥19; n=20)” clearly delineates the scope of the study at baseline.. In the ‘Materials and Methods’ section the number of study subjects should be absolutely documented. Herein, after assignment of names to groups, in the rest of the manuscript, these names should be used. For example instead of saying: “Mean ages of the cases with LUTS scores between 0–9, 10–18, and ≥19 were determined to be 63.2±2.1, 62.8±4.5, and 65.7±3.9 years, respectively” it will be more comprehensible to use the expression: “Mean ages of the Groups 1, 2, and 3 were specified as 63.2±2.1, 62.8±4.5, and 65.7±3.9 years.” (p=0.478). Expressions indicated in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section should not be repeated in the “Results” section. Thus, errors of repetition will be precluded. Following the abovementioned information, the evaluation method of the cases enrolled in the study should be indicated. Hence, results of medical history, physical examination, and if performed laboratory or radiological evaluations-in that order-should be indicated. The application of survey study-if any-should be investigated, and documented. Therefore, the following sentences encompass all the information stated above: “The cases were evaluated with detailed medical history, physical examination, measurements of serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone (T) levels, complete urinalysis, urinary flow rate, direct urinary system roentgenograms, urinary system ultrasound, and if required cyctoscopy. Lower urinary system complaints, and erectile dysfunction were evaluated using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Erectile Function Scale (IIEF), respectively.” Apparently, questionnaire forms were used in the above-cited study. However, methods used for the evaluation of questionnaire forms, and significance of the results obtained, and if possible, the first performer of this survey should be written with accompanying references. In relation to the abovementioned questionnaires the following statements constitute standard expressions for the ‘Materials and Methods’ section: “International Prostate Symptom Score (IPPS) was used in the determination of the severity of prostatic symptoms. IPSS used to determine the severity of the disease, evaluate treatment response, and ascertain the symptomatic progression, is the most optimal scoring system recommended by European Association of Urology (EAU) which classifies the severity of the disease based on IPSS scores as mild (0–7), moderate (8–19), and severe symptomatic (20–35) disease. In the evaluation of sexual function International Erectile Function Scale (IIEF) was used. IIEF is one of the most prevalently used form for the patients who consulted for the complaints of sexual dysfunction Based on IIEF scores, the severity of the disease was classified as severe (1–10), moderate (11–16), mild to moderate (17–21), mild (22–25), and no ED (26–30).”

Whether the institutions of the authors working for should be written in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section can be a subject of debate, generally viewpoints favour provision of this information. However, in compliance with their writing rules, some journals do not favour open-label studies where name of the study site is indicated, and this principle is communicated to the author during editorial evaluation Besides, in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section, the brand of the study object, and its country of origin should be indicated. (ie. if radiological methods are used, then the brand of radiological equipment, and its manufacturing country should be specified. In a study entitled ‘The Impact of Computed Tomography in the Prediction of Post-Radical Nephrectomy Stage in Renal Tumours’ since the main topic of the study is computed tomography, the specifications of the equipment used should be explicitely indicated. On the other hand, the details of the medical method which can effect the outcomes of the study should be also recorded. Accordingly, the methods applied for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureterorenoscopy, varicocelectomy, transurethral prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy (perineal, open, laparoscopic or robotic should be absolutely indicated. Then inclusion, and exclusion criteria, and if used control group, and its characteristics should be documented. Thus the following paragraph about exclusion criteria will be appropriate: Patients with a history of neurogenic bladder, prostatic or abdominal operation, and transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (within the previous 6 months), those aged <40 or >70 years, individuals with a peak urine flow rate below 10 ml/sec, and residual urine more than 150 cc were not included in the study.” [ 1 – 3 , 9 ]

Some diseases mentioned in the “Materials and Methods” section require special monitorization procedures. In these cases the procedure of monitorization should be documented for the sake of the validity of the study in question. Accordingly, in conditions such as “nephrectomy, prostatectomy, orchidectomy, pyeloplasty, varicocelectomy, drug therapies, penile prosthesis, and urethral stricture” clinical follow-up protocols should be provided.

The abovementioned rules, and recommendations are most frequently valid for a clinical study, and some points indicated in experimental studies should be also considered. Types, weights, gender, and number of the animals used in animal studies should be absolutely specified. Besides condition of evaluation of experimental animals should be noted. Then as is the case with clinical studies, approval of the ethics committee should be obtained, and documented. Accordingly, the beginning paragraphs of the ‘Materials and Methods’ can be expressed as follows:

“In the study, 40 Wistar-Albino 6-month-old rats each weighing 350–400 g were used. After approval of the ethics committee (HADYEK-41) the study was performed within the frame of rules specified by the National Institute for animal experiments. The rats were divided into 3 groups. Hence, Group 1 (n=7) was accepted as the control group. The rats subjected to partial ureteral obstruction with or without oral carvedilol therapy at daily doses of 2 mg/kg maintained for 7 days constituted Groups 3 (n=8), and 2 (n=8), respectively. Each group of 4 rats was housed in standard cages with an area of 40×60 cm. The animals were fed with standard 8 mm food pellets, and fresh daily tap water. The rats were kept in the cages under 12 hours of light, and 12 hours of dark. Ambient temperature, and humidity were set at 22±2°C, and 50±10%, respectively.”

Herein, the method, and agent of anesthesia used (local or general anesthesia) in surgical procedures, and then the experimental method applied should be clearly indicated. For example the following sentences explain our abovementioned arguments; “All surgical procedures were performed under xylazine-ketamine anesthesia. In all groups, ureters were approached through midline abdominal incision. In Group 1, ureters were manipulated without causing obstruction. Results of biochemical, and pathological evaluations performed in Group 1 were considered as baseline values.”

“Through a midline abdominal incision partial ureteral obstruction was achieved by embedding two-thirds of the distal part of the left ureter into psoas muscle using 4/0 silk sutures as described formerly by Wen et al. [ 10 ] ( Figure 1 ). [ 11 ] All rats were subjected to left nephrectomies at the end of the experimental study.” As formulated by the above paragraph, if the method used is not widely utilized, then the first researcher who describes the method should be indicated with relevant references. One or more than one figures with a good resolution, and easily comprehensible legends should be also included in the explanation of the experimental model. For very prevalently used experimental models as torsion models cited in the “Materials and Methods” section, there is no need to include figures in the manuscript.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is TJU-39-Supp-10-g01.jpg

Partial ureteral obstruction model [ 11 ]

Appropriate signs, and marks placed on the figure will facilitate comprehension of the legends ( Figure 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is TJU-39-Supp-10-g02.jpg

Ureteral segments (black arrows) seen in a rat partial ureteral obstruction model [ 11 ]

The signs used will also improve intelligibility of the target. The figures should be indicated within parentheses in their first mention in the “Materials and Methods” section. Headings and as a prevalent convention legends of the figures should be indicated at the end of the manuscript.

If a different method is used in the study, this should be explained in detail. For instance, in a study where the effect of smoking on testes was investigated, the method, and the applicator used to expose rats to cigarette smoke should be indicated in the ‘Methods’ section following classical description. Relevant to the study in question, the following paragraph explaining the study method should be written: “A glass chamber with dimensions of 75 × 50 × 50 cm was prepared, and divided into 4 compartments with wire fences. The rats in the 2., and 4. cages were placed in these compartments. Each compartment contained 4 rats. Cigarette smoke was produced using one cigarette per hour, and smoke coming from the tip, and the filter of the lighted cigarette was pumped into the gas chamber with a pneumatic motor. The rats were exposed to smoke of 6 cigarettes for 6 hours. The compartments of the rats were changed every day so as to achieve balanced exposure of the rats to cigarette smoke.” [ 12 ]

Meanwhile, chemical names, doses, and routes of administration of the substances used in experimental studies should be indicated. If the substance used is a solution or an antibody, then manufacturing firm, and its country should be indicated in parenthesis. This approach can be exemplified as “Animals used in experiments were randomized into 4 groups of 8 animals. Each group was housed in 2 cages each containing 4 animals. The first group did not undergo any additional procedure (Group 1). The second group was exposed to cigarette smoke (Group 2). The third (Group 3), and the fourth (Group 4) groups received daily intraperitoneal injectable doses of 10 mg/kg resveratrol (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The Group 4 was also exposed to cigarette smoke. [ 12 ]

After all of these procedures, method, and analytical procedure of histopathological examination used should be described-if possible-by a pathologist Similarly, biochemical method used should be referenced, and written by the department of clinical chemistry. It can be inferred that each division should describe its own method. In other words, histopathological, microbiological, and pharmacological method should be described in detail by respective divisions.

If we summarize all the information stated above, understandably sharing of the scientific knowledge is essential.. Since reproducibility of a study demonstrates the robustness of a study, with the detailed approaches indicated above, reproducibility of our study is provided, and the relevant questions of “How?”, and “How much?” are answered. Besides, since ‘Materials, and Methods’, and ‘Results’ sections will constitute a meaningful whole, explanations of all information related to the data mentioned in the ‘Results’ section should be provided. As an important point not to be forgotten, evaluation or measurement method used for each parameter indicated in the ‘Results’ section should be expounded in the “Materials and Methods” section. For example if you used an expression in the” Results” section like “median body mass index (BMI) of the patients was 27.42 kg/m 2 ”, then you should beforehand indicate that comparative evaluation of BMIs will be done in the “Materials and Methods” section. In addition, the description, and significance of the values expressed in the “Results” section should be indicated in the “Materials and Methods” section. In other words, it should be stated that the patients were evaluated based on their BMIs as normal (18–24.9 kg/m 2 ), overweight (25 kg/m 2 –40 kg/m 2 ), and morbid obesity (>40 kg/m 2 ). If you encounter difficulties in writing “Materials and Methods” section, also a valid approach for other sections, firstly simple headings can be written, then you can go into details. In brief, for every parameter, the reader should get clear-cut answers to the questions such as “How did they evaluate this parameter, and which criteria were used?”. [ 1 , 3 , 13 – 15 ]

The last paragraph of the ‘Materials, and Methods’ section should naturally involve statistical evaluations. This section should be written by statisticians. Accordingly, the preferred statistical method, and the justifications for this preference should be indicated. In conventional statistical evaluations, provision of details is not required. In information indicated above, the statement “For statistical analysis, ANOVA test, chi-square test, T test, Kruskal-Wallis test have been used.” is not required very much. Instead, more appropriate expression will be a statement indicating that recommendations of a knowledgeable, and an experienced statistician were taken into consideration or advanced statistical information was reflected on the statistical evaluations as follows: “Chi-square tests were used in intergroup comparisons of categorical variables, and categorical variables were expressed as numbers, and percentages. In comparisons between LUTS, and ED as for age, independent two samples t-test was used. In the evaluation of the factors effective on erectile dysfunction multivariate logistic regresssion test was used. P values lower than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant The calculations were performed using a statistical package program (PASW v18, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).” Herein, the type of statistical package used for statistical methods should be emphasized.

How To Write A Brilliant Methods Section Of Research Paper

The Methods Section Of Research Paper summarizes the processes used during the study. It outlines how you carried out your research and what tools were used. By doing so, readers can determine the validity of the findings and how you conducted your research. The findings would only be as reliable with this section, determining whether the researcher conducted research properly. Our writers, who also offer research writing services, have discussed important points on writing the methods section of a research paper in the best ways possible. Research writing can be strenuous, and stress can lead to writer’s block. But you need to take care of just a handful of things to ace your methods section.

Our writers who are experts related to research writing services have shared their valuable insights on how to write a brilliant methods section of a research paper. Let’s explore their thoughts together!

Table of Contents

Overview of What’s Ahead In This Blog

When discussing the methodology of your research paper, you have to take care of a specific handful of things. With just a little information and attention, your methodology will stand out among all your competitors.

You must provide all the necessary information and key aspects of your chosen research topic. What was your basic motivation behind it? And what moves you about your take on the issue? The next steps are defining your strategy to validate the feasibility and justify the experimental designs. That will be followed by the type of data you collect and the techniques of data collection, and then you will have to take a data analysis. After you have all the data and the questions, it is time to interpret and share the results in your research writing. We will discuss these steps in more detail in words ahead. Read on!

How To Write The Methods Section Of A Research Paper? Key Elements

Deciding the key elements in the methods section of a research paper is often a tricky part of your research study. One of the reasons is that many research fields are out there, and all of them would require a different approach to existing data. Almost every subject will have a different research method. You would need opinion-based research methods for a historical research paper topic . On the other hand, medical research would require you to adopt a different and factual approach.

Designing the Research Study

There are typically three steps involved in designing research. Identifying and understanding the real problem to be addressed is the first step toward creating an adapted study. The second phase involves constructing the necessary tools and developing the methodology. Techniques related to data collection and data sampling fall under this category. As a final step, the results and conclusions are typically developed after the data has been analyzed and explained. A study proposal should contain all of these elements.

Choosing A Research Design

The design of a study follows an approach similar to that of problem-solving. It follows the classic three-point scheme: analysis, diagnosis, and solution. In essence, the research design is the study’s context. In this step, you must work through identifying and analyzing the root problem. It involves gathering the necessary information and identifying relevant procedures to be implemented. Choosing a research design that goes well with your feasibility and stakeholder expectations is the way to go.

Defining The Research Question Or Hypothesis

One of the most important parts of the methods section of a research paper is defining your research question. A great research question follows your hypothesis. You have to ask yourself if the question is worth asking. Does it contribute to society and offers more insights to other researchers? It would be great to run some statistical tests and gain prior knowledge before jumping right into it. The basic structure of your research paper depends on how you ask your research questions.

Selecting A Sample Or Participants

Human participants are the basic components of almost every sort of academic writing. How many participants are included in your research? You have to keep a sharp look at the demographics. You must select the samples carefully with the essential details of your target journal. You want to include only necessary details that could lead to trouble in the future.

Data Collection Methods

There are many different parts to a research study, but data is arguably the most important. Data allows researchers to see what is happening in their study and is the foundation upon which all conclusions are drawn. With data, a research study would be a series of educated guesses. That is why data is so important – it is the key to understanding what is going on in a research study.

Determining The Data Collection Methods

Where are you collecting your data from? Have you looked at the systematic historical reviews of our methodological approach? Data collection methods will differ based on the variables to be measured, where they come from, and the resources available. There are many cases in which certain variables can be gathered naturally. Using a recording system, you can collect relatively static variables. For example, you could record and compare people shipping via air cargo or ocean cargo.

Overview of common data collection methods

There are many types of data collection methods that you can use in the methods section in a research paper. Choosing the right data collection method is very important for your statistical analysis. The choice of data collection method also depends on your available technical equipment. You could use log registrations, questionnaires, or interviews, or you can collect direct observations.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Each Method

You must define the data collection method you used in the methods section of the research paper. As we all know that every data collection method has perks and flaws, we must justify our chosen method and why. We also have to justify it to ourselves by looking at our target journal and consolidated standards.

Considerations For Selecting The Appropriate Data Collection Method

What particular method we have used and what considerations we have gone through should be apparent in our choice of style guide. Does our model of data fulfill all the details of our statistical analyses? Similar questions should be apparent through your flow diagrams as well as in your methods sections.

Ensuring The Study’s Validity And Reliability Of The Data Collection Process

The methods section of the research paper ensures that you express enough detail and follow specific instructions to make your reader understand the point of your study. The validity of your study varies on research paper topics as well.

Data Analysis

The methods section is not just a list of methods you describe in your scientific paper. It is a sense of the basic structure of academic publishing and defining academic writing standards. Data Analysis is one of the core elements of academic writing and the backbone of preferred reporting items. Data analysis is one of the most important factors in the methods section of a research paper. This process will also enable you to be a better researcher and a statistics or journey as a business analyst .

Overview Of Common Data Analysis Techniques

Whether you are writing on psychology research topics , life sciences, or any other scientific research article, data analysis techniques could be similar. There are many different methods used for data analysis. Those could be text analysis, statistical analysis, prescriptive analysis, and diagnosis analysis.

Choosing The Appropriate Data Analysis Method

Choosing the right technique for your data analysis is highly critical. For example, you must go for text analysis if you write on literary research topics . On the other hand, if you are researching the economy, most of your techniques would be statistical analysis.

Ensuring The Validity And Reliability Of The Data Analysis Process

Various techniques are useful in research papers, and it is important to choose the right one for the job. Different types of research come to require different standards for data analysis. Whatever technique you choose, you need to be able to justify it in the methods section of a research paper. You have to ensure that you can justify the validity of your data and the reliability of your analysis process . This section should explain why you chose the particular technique and how it will help you to achieve your research goals.

Reporting The Results Of The Data Analysis

There’s nothing quite like seeing the results of your hard work come to fruition. The methods section of the research paper details the hows and whys of your analysis, and the results section lets you see your work’s impact. Whether it’s a finding that supports your hypothesis or an unexpected result that leads to more questions, reporting the results of your analysis is the most fun part of the research process.

Purpose Of The Methods Section Of Research Paper

purpose of methods section in a research paper

The methods section of a research paper is one of the most critical parts of your research and must be done right. In this section, you write about all your struggles and the paths you took to establish the basis of your research journey. Your method section describes the tools and methodologies used to form a thesis, do your research, and establish your results.

Importance Of The Methods Section In Communicating Research Findings

The Methods Section Of Research Paper is important to communicate thoroughly with your supervisors. It is important for the stakeholders if you are conducting research for a university or an organization. They need to know what the feasibility and scope of your research leads and an idea of return on investment. After all, they will put much of their resources, time, and energy into your research project. For example, if you are working in social and behavioral sciences, your supervisors would look for ideas to help with social improvement. Government or non-government organizations might participate in the funding, and they will be anticipating the research methodology that makes sense to them. They will also need to see a solid possibility of success.

The methods sections are fun, aren’t they? Even if you didn’t feel that before, we are sure it now sounds like a piece of cake. Once you get a hold of it, you will ace it as none has ever. However, if you still need clarification or help, you can always reach out to us at Paper Perk on our contact page, and we will be right there immediately to solve your problem.

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Paper

Definition:

Research Paper is a written document that presents the author’s original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue.

It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to a particular field of study, and to demonstrate the author’s understanding of the existing literature and theories related to the topic.

Structure of Research Paper

The structure of a research paper typically follows a standard format, consisting of several sections that convey specific information about the research study. The following is a detailed explanation of the structure of a research paper:

The title page contains the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and the affiliation(s) of the author(s). It also includes the date of submission and possibly, the name of the journal or conference where the paper is to be published.

The abstract is a brief summary of the research paper, typically ranging from 100 to 250 words. It should include the research question, the methods used, the key findings, and the implications of the results. The abstract should be written in a concise and clear manner to allow readers to quickly grasp the essence of the research.

Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper provides background information about the research problem, the research question, and the research objectives. It also outlines the significance of the research, the research gap that it aims to fill, and the approach taken to address the research question. Finally, the introduction section ends with a clear statement of the research hypothesis or research question.

Literature Review

The literature review section of a research paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the topic of study. It includes a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, highlighting the key concepts, themes, and debates. The literature review should also demonstrate the research gap and how the current study seeks to address it.

The methods section of a research paper describes the research design, the sample selection, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data. This section should provide sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the research, using tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. The findings should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the research question and hypothesis.

The discussion section of a research paper interprets the findings and discusses their implications for the research question, the literature review, and the field of study. It should also address the limitations of the study and suggest future research directions.

The conclusion section summarizes the main findings of the study, restates the research question and hypothesis, and provides a final reflection on the significance of the research.

The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago.

How to Write Research Paper

You can write Research Paper by the following guide:

Choose a Topic: The first step is to select a topic that interests you and is relevant to your field of study. Brainstorm ideas and narrow down to a research question that is specific and researchable.
Conduct a Literature Review: The literature review helps you identify the gap in the existing research and provides a basis for your research question. It also helps you to develop a theoretical framework and research hypothesis.
Develop a Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the main argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise and specific to your research question.
Plan your Research: Develop a research plan that outlines the methods, data sources, and data analysis procedures. This will help you to collect and analyze data effectively.
Collect and Analyze Data: Collect data using various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Analyze data using statistical tools or other qualitative methods.
Organize your Paper : Organize your paper into sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Ensure that each section is coherent and follows a logical flow.
Write your Paper : Start by writing the introduction, followed by the literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and follows the required formatting and citation styles.
Edit and Proofread your Paper: Review your paper for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure that it is well-structured and easy to read. Ask someone else to review your paper to get feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Cite your Sources: Ensure that you properly cite all sources used in your research paper. This is essential for giving credit to the original authors and avoiding plagiarism.

Research Paper Example

Note : The below example research paper is for illustrative purposes only and is not an actual research paper. Actual research papers may have different structures, contents, and formats depending on the field of study, research question, data collection and analysis methods, and other factors. Students should always consult with their professors or supervisors for specific guidelines and expectations for their research papers.

Research Paper Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health among Young Adults

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults. A literature review was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic. A survey was then administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Introduction: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, particularly among young adults. While social media has many benefits, including increased communication and social connectivity, it has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as addiction, cyberbullying, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults.

Literature Review: The literature review highlights the existing research on the impact of social media use on mental health. The review shows that social media use is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health problems. The review also identifies the factors that contribute to the negative impact of social media, including social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Methods : A survey was administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The survey included questions on social media use, mental health status (measured using the DASS-21), and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results : The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Discussion : The study’s findings suggest that social media use has a negative impact on the mental health of young adults. The study highlights the need for interventions that address the factors contributing to the negative impact of social media, such as social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Conclusion : In conclusion, social media use has a significant impact on the mental health of young adults. The study’s findings underscore the need for interventions that promote healthy social media use and address the negative outcomes associated with social media use. Future research can explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health. Additionally, longitudinal studies can investigate the long-term effects of social media use on mental health.

Limitations : The study has some limitations, including the use of self-report measures and a cross-sectional design. The use of self-report measures may result in biased responses, and a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality.

Implications: The study’s findings have implications for mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers. Mental health professionals can use the findings to develop interventions that address the negative impact of social media use on mental health. Educators can incorporate social media literacy into their curriculum to promote healthy social media use among young adults. Policymakers can use the findings to develop policies that protect young adults from the negative outcomes associated with social media use.

References :

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive medicine reports, 15, 100918.
Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., … & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1-9.
Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2017). Social media and its impact on academic performance of students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 383-398.

Appendix : The survey used in this study is provided below.

Social Media and Mental Health Survey

How often do you use social media per day?
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 4 hours
More than 4 hours
Which social media platforms do you use?
Others (Please specify)
How often do you experience the following on social media?
Social comparison (comparing yourself to others)
Cyberbullying
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
Have you ever experienced any of the following mental health problems in the past month?
Do you think social media use has a positive or negative impact on your mental health?
Very positive
Somewhat positive
Somewhat negative
Very negative
In your opinion, which factors contribute to the negative impact of social media on mental health?
Social comparison
In your opinion, what interventions could be effective in reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health?
Education on healthy social media use
Counseling for mental health problems caused by social media
Social media detox programs
Regulation of social media use

Thank you for your participation!

Applications of Research Paper

Research papers have several applications in various fields, including:

Advancing knowledge: Research papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge by generating new insights, theories, and findings that can inform future research and practice. They help to answer important questions, clarify existing knowledge, and identify areas that require further investigation.
Informing policy: Research papers can inform policy decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. They can help to identify gaps in current policies, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and inform the development of new policies and regulations.
Improving practice: Research papers can improve practice by providing evidence-based guidance for professionals in various fields, including medicine, education, business, and psychology. They can inform the development of best practices, guidelines, and standards of care that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
Educating students : Research papers are often used as teaching tools in universities and colleges to educate students about research methods, data analysis, and academic writing. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, research skills, and communication skills that are essential for success in many careers.
Fostering collaboration: Research papers can foster collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and ideas. They can facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships that can lead to innovative solutions to complex problems.

When to Write Research Paper

Research papers are typically written when a person has completed a research project or when they have conducted a study and have obtained data or findings that they want to share with the academic or professional community. Research papers are usually written in academic settings, such as universities, but they can also be written in professional settings, such as research organizations, government agencies, or private companies.

Here are some common situations where a person might need to write a research paper:

For academic purposes: Students in universities and colleges are often required to write research papers as part of their coursework, particularly in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. Writing research papers helps students to develop research skills, critical thinking skills, and academic writing skills.
For publication: Researchers often write research papers to publish their findings in academic journals or to present their work at academic conferences. Publishing research papers is an important way to disseminate research findings to the academic community and to establish oneself as an expert in a particular field.
To inform policy or practice : Researchers may write research papers to inform policy decisions or to improve practice in various fields. Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies, guidelines, and best practices that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
To share new insights or ideas: Researchers may write research papers to share new insights or ideas with the academic or professional community. They may present new theories, propose new research methods, or challenge existing paradigms in their field.

Purpose of Research Paper

The purpose of a research paper is to present the results of a study or investigation in a clear, concise, and structured manner. Research papers are written to communicate new knowledge, ideas, or findings to a specific audience, such as researchers, scholars, practitioners, or policymakers. The primary purposes of a research paper are:

To contribute to the body of knowledge : Research papers aim to add new knowledge or insights to a particular field or discipline. They do this by reporting the results of empirical studies, reviewing and synthesizing existing literature, proposing new theories, or providing new perspectives on a topic.
To inform or persuade: Research papers are written to inform or persuade the reader about a particular issue, topic, or phenomenon. They present evidence and arguments to support their claims and seek to persuade the reader of the validity of their findings or recommendations.
To advance the field: Research papers seek to advance the field or discipline by identifying gaps in knowledge, proposing new research questions or approaches, or challenging existing assumptions or paradigms. They aim to contribute to ongoing debates and discussions within a field and to stimulate further research and inquiry.
To demonstrate research skills: Research papers demonstrate the author’s research skills, including their ability to design and conduct a study, collect and analyze data, and interpret and communicate findings. They also demonstrate the author’s ability to critically evaluate existing literature, synthesize information from multiple sources, and write in a clear and structured manner.

Characteristics of Research Paper

Research papers have several characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of academic or professional writing. Here are some common characteristics of research papers:

Evidence-based: Research papers are based on empirical evidence, which is collected through rigorous research methods such as experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. They rely on objective data and facts to support their claims and conclusions.
Structured and organized: Research papers have a clear and logical structure, with sections such as introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. They are organized in a way that helps the reader to follow the argument and understand the findings.
Formal and objective: Research papers are written in a formal and objective tone, with an emphasis on clarity, precision, and accuracy. They avoid subjective language or personal opinions and instead rely on objective data and analysis to support their arguments.
Citations and references: Research papers include citations and references to acknowledge the sources of information and ideas used in the paper. They use a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Peer-reviewed: Research papers are often peer-reviewed, which means they are evaluated by other experts in the field before they are published. Peer-review ensures that the research is of high quality, meets ethical standards, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
Objective and unbiased: Research papers strive to be objective and unbiased in their presentation of the findings. They avoid personal biases or preconceptions and instead rely on the data and analysis to draw conclusions.

Advantages of Research Paper

Research papers have many advantages, both for the individual researcher and for the broader academic and professional community. Here are some advantages of research papers:

Contribution to knowledge: Research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline. They add new information, insights, and perspectives to existing literature and help advance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue.
Opportunity for intellectual growth: Research papers provide an opportunity for intellectual growth for the researcher. They require critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, which can help develop the researcher’s skills and knowledge.
Career advancement: Research papers can help advance the researcher’s career by demonstrating their expertise and contributions to the field. They can also lead to new research opportunities, collaborations, and funding.
Academic recognition: Research papers can lead to academic recognition in the form of awards, grants, or invitations to speak at conferences or events. They can also contribute to the researcher’s reputation and standing in the field.
Impact on policy and practice: Research papers can have a significant impact on policy and practice. They can inform policy decisions, guide practice, and lead to changes in laws, regulations, or procedures.
Advancement of society: Research papers can contribute to the advancement of society by addressing important issues, identifying solutions to problems, and promoting social justice and equality.

Limitations of Research Paper

Research papers also have some limitations that should be considered when interpreting their findings or implications. Here are some common limitations of research papers:

Limited generalizability: Research findings may not be generalizable to other populations, settings, or contexts. Studies often use specific samples or conditions that may not reflect the broader population or real-world situations.
Potential for bias : Research papers may be biased due to factors such as sample selection, measurement errors, or researcher biases. It is important to evaluate the quality of the research design and methods used to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.
Ethical concerns: Research papers may raise ethical concerns, such as the use of vulnerable populations or invasive procedures. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants to ensure that the research is conducted in a responsible and respectful manner.
Limitations of methodology: Research papers may be limited by the methodology used to collect and analyze data. For example, certain research methods may not capture the complexity or nuance of a particular phenomenon, or may not be appropriate for certain research questions.
Publication bias: Research papers may be subject to publication bias, where positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than negative or non-significant findings. This can skew the overall findings of a particular area of research.
Time and resource constraints: Research papers may be limited by time and resource constraints, which can affect the quality and scope of the research. Researchers may not have access to certain data or resources, or may be unable to conduct long-term studies due to practical limitations.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Advanced search

American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Manuscript

Find this author on Google Scholar
Find this author on PubMed
Search for this author on this site
For correspondence: [email protected]
Figures & Data
Info & Metrics

The methods section of a manuscript is one of the most important parts of a research paper because it provides information on the validity of the study and credibility of the results. Inadequate description of the methods has been reported as one of the main reasons for manuscript rejection. The methods section must include sufficient detail so that others could repeat the study and reproduce the results. The structure of the methods section should flow logically and chronologically. There are multiple components of methods sections, including study design, materials used, study procedures, and data analysis. Each element must be adequately described and thoroughly detailed to provide an understanding of how the results were obtained and how to interpret the findings. Studies that involved humans or animals must include an ethics statement of approval from the appropriate governing body. The methods section should explain how subjects were identified and should state inclusion and exclusion criteria. All materials used to complete the study should be described in detail, including equipment, drugs, gases, chemicals, treatments, interventions, or other items. Study procedures should outline all steps taken to obtain the results and clearly state the outcome measures. Subheadings might be helpful for organizing the methods section into subsections when there is a considerable amount of information to report. A well-written methods section will guide the reader through the research process and provide adequate information to evaluate study validity and reproduce the work. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for writing the methods section of a manuscript.

research paper
science writing
publication
study protocol
Introduction

Dissemination of research findings occurs through abstracts, posters, presentations, and manuscripts. 1 , - , 3 Writing the manuscript is considered the last step of the research process because it provides a detailed account of the research from start to finish. 4 , 5 The main components of a research paper include an abstract, the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. 3 , 4 Each section of the manuscript is important and has a specific role in describing the research story. However, the methods are one of the most critical sections of a manuscript because the details are used to evaluate and determine the validity of the study and credibility of the results. 6 Validity in research refers to reliability of the measured results: the extent to which the study accurately measured what it intended (internal validity) and how the results can be applied to the general population beyond the study (external validity). 6 , 7

The methods section describes what was done to answer the research question. 8 This section specifies how the research was done, the rationale for the procedures, what materials were used, and how the results were analyzed, all in a clear, concise, and organized manner. 6 The description of the research should provide enough detail so others could repeat the study and reproduce the results. 6 , 9 , 10 Much of the methods section should be written before the study is initiated. Indeed, for funded research, a detailed methods section is written as part of the grant application. There are several aspects of the methods sections, and the essential elements will vary, depending on the type of study. Submission requirements differ among journals; therefore, it is important to consult the instructions for authors for the specific journal to ensure that all necessary elements are included. 11 The purpose of this paper is to describe the different components of the methods section and provide guidance for writing the methods section of a research paper.

General Considerations

An inadequate description of methods has been identified as one of the top reasons for manuscript rejection. 12 It has been suggested that including too much information is better than having insufficient detail because irrelevant content can later be omitted. 12 The methods section of a research paper is analogous to a recipe. 10 , 13 A recipe is composed of multiple elements, including the list and quantity of ingredients, equipment and tools needed and applicable settings, and the detailed instructions for how to create the recipe. Similar to a recipe, there are different elements of methods to describe in a manuscript. In general, common components of the methods section include a description of the study design, materials used, study procedures, measurements or calculations, and the statistical tests used to analyze the results. Materials used to conduct research are comparable with the ingredients, tools, and equipment for a recipe. Materials represent what was studied, including subjects, equipment or devices, and treatments or interventions. 6 , 14 The steps to create a recipe are akin to study procedures such as the process for data collection, measurements, calculations, and statistical analysis. A summary of the different elements of the methods section is included in Table 1 . The individual components for each element may vary, depending on the nature of the study.

View inline
Download powerpoint

Methods Section Elements

Although similarities exist between a recipe and the methods section of a research paper, the methods section should not be formatted to read like a recipe. 13 Use past tense for writing the methods section because the study has been completed and describes what was already done. 6 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 The methods section should be structured for logical and chronological flow. 6 , 14 , 15 Use of subheadings can be helpful for organizing the different components for the methods section when there is a substantial amount of detail to describe. 6 , 13 However, subheadings may not be required by some journals. An excessive use of subheadings can be distracting to the reader by interrupting the flow of the manuscript. There should not be a subheading for every paragraph. This is particularly distracting when each subheading is followed by a short 1- or 2-sentence paragraph. Paragraphs with fewer than 3 sentences should be avoided; combine the information with another paragraph unless the journal to which the paper will be submitted requires specific subheadings. Subheadings can be useful as an outline when writing the methods section but then might be omitted in the final manuscript.

A common error in manuscript writing is reporting results in the methods section and vice versa. A frequently occurring example is including the number of subjects who participated in the research in the methods section when it was unknown how many met inclusion criteria before study initiation and subject screening. The methods section should only include information available during the planning phase, before study initiation. 10 , 16 There are instances in which study procedures may have changed after the study commencement. This information would be reported in the methods section but the outcomes stated in the results section. The results section should reflect the data obtained from study procedures because this information would be unknown before the study was completed.

Study Design

The methods section often begins with an overall description of the study design and key attributes, including the type of study, setting, time frame, and procedures. 14 , 15 This provides an overview and context for how the study was conducted with further details and specifics described in subsequent subsections. Study design has been described as a road map for the methods section to provide information for how to understand the approach and interpret the results. 14

Common study designs include observational, bench evaluation, systematic review, randomized controlled trial, survey, and others. Guidelines for writing the manuscript include the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for randomized controlled trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. 17 , 18 Registration is another consideration for clinical trials and systematic reviews. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 16 requires registration of clinical trials on a public trials registry. Many journals, including R espiratory C are , follow the recommendations for publication set forth by this group. A randomized controlled trial should also include the blinding mechanism and different treatment groups as applicable. 17 Although registration of a systematic review is often not a prerequisite for publication, registering the protocol supports transparency, decreases potential bias, and can help prevent duplication of reviews. 18 An observational study should report if the design was retrospective, prospective, a secondary or post hoc analysis, or other category of observational design. 7

The setting where the study occurred, if it included data from a single-center or multiple centers, and the time frame in which it took place must be included because these factors have implications for clinical practice, generalizability, and validity. 7 Potential study settings might include an ICU (or specific ICU type), medical surgical ward, emergency department, out-patient clinic, home-care environment, or simulation laboratory. The time frame is an essential element for context because practices and trends change over time. A prime example of this is prone positioning for treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure as use substantially increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. 19

Ethics Statement

The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines a human subject “as a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the biospecimens; or obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.” 20 The methods section must include a statement regarding approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee for research that included human subjects. 16 Quality improvement studies and certain types of surveys are often not considered human subject research and therefore may not require IRB oversight but the decision is made by the IRB. Quality improvement projects, depending on requirements of the institution or organization, can be performed without IRB approval in some cases; however, IRB approval is needed before publication or presentation outside of the institution, and human subject determination is made by the IRB, not the investigators.

Animal studies also require ethics approval to be reported in the methods section. Research that involves animals is subject to approval from the local Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and must be conducted in accordance with national guidelines, for example, the National Institute of Health Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 21 For journals that do not have a specific requirement for where to include the ethics statement within the methods section, many authors typically incorporate it in the initial general description of the study or with the detailed description of the subjects. Some studies have included it at the beginning of the methods section.

Characteristics of the study population should be described. This includes basic demographics (eg, adults or children, age, sex) and general health status such as if the individuals were healthy volunteers or had a specific diagnosis or condition. This information is also needed for control groups. 4 Inclusion criteria for how subjects were identified and selected should be detailed as well as reasons for exclusion. For example, an evaluation of a disease management program included adults ages ≥ 65 years and with COPD who were admitted to 1 of 5 hospitals during a specified time frame. 22 Patients were excluded if they left against medical advice, died during admission, transferred to a hospital outside of the health system, entered hospice care, refused home care, or were unable to participate in education. 22 In this example, subject characteristics (adults with COPD), selection and identification (hospital admission during defined time frame), and exclusion criteria are clearly stated.

When referring to human subjects in research, the terms subject and patient are often used interchangeably, but there is a difference. 23 A patient receives care to improve health, and care is individualized in each particular case. When a patient participates in research, he or she becomes a subject. In research, care is designed to create information and is the same for all subjects based on the study protocol. The individual conducting the research is not always involved in the patient care provided, thus also making the distinction between subject and patient. A common error is to use the word subjects exclusively when writing the manuscript. However, individuals are patients before enrollment. When referring to the broader population of individuals who might benefit from the research findings, the word patients is likely more correct. Participant and volunteer are other terms that can be used in place of subject. Individuals who participated in survey research are typically referred to as respondents . 24

In addition to humans, research subjects may also involve animals or organisms such as cells. When animals are studied, the methods should describe the species, weight, age, and sex of the animals. 6 Ring et al 25 used ex vivo porcine lungs to evaluate the effect of breathing pattern and nebulization on exhaled viral content during mechanical ventilation. The authors reported that the lungs were sourced from a retail processing facility and were from 6-month-old Yorkshire hybrid pigs that weighed 118 kg. In addition, it was noted that approval to conduct the study was granted by the local Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. This publication demonstrates an appropriate description of animal subjects, including an ethics statement.

Equipment and Other Materials

Identify all equipment and other materials used in the study, including devices, related accessories, drugs, or chemicals. At first mention of any device, provide the specific name of the item, model number if applicable, and manufacturer information. Many scientific journals do not usually allow use of trademark or registration symbols. 10 The ICMJE recommends that manufacturer name and location be included in parentheses. 16 For example, a study that evaluated the safety and feasibility of breathing high-dose nitric oxide in healthy volunteers used a Sievers 280i nitric oxide analyzer (GE Analytical Instruments, Boulder, Colorado) to measure nitric oxide gas concentration. 26 Subsequent mentions of equipment should be noted by generic name versus trade name when possible. It is important that the methods section does not project any bias that an author may have for a specific device or manufacturer.

Use of figures can be an effective means of providing a visual description of the equipment setup, especially when there are many components involved. This can also help reduce the amount of text and improve understanding of how the equipment was assembled. Figures can be either a photograph of the equipment or a graphic illustration (line drawing), but all components should be clearly labeled. An illustration of the setup used to deliver high-dose nitric oxide in the aforementioned study is provided in Figure 1 . 26 Use of a photograph to depict the experimental setup for measuring peak expiratory flow during mechanical insufflation-exsufflation is demonstrated in Figure 2 . 27 Photographs should be of good quality and include all relevant items. In both examples, all components are clearly identified and labeled.

Download figure
Open in new tab

Graphic illustration of an experimental setup. From Reference 26.

Photograph of an experimental setup. From Reference 27.

In addition to naming the specific equipment used in the study, settings should also be included in the methods section because these details are highly relevant for duplication of the study. For example, the evaluation of peak expiratory flow during mechanical insufflation-exsufflation provided the pressure settings used during therapy. 27 Not only is this important for repeating the study, but it is also essential for assessing the validity of the results. If the settings were not typical of those used in the study population or in clinical practice, then this would introduce limitations to interpreting and understanding the results.

Equipment preparation is another consideration for the methods section. Describe the calibration process and the frequency for equipment that requires calibration. The flow meter used to measure peak expiratory flow during mechanical insufflation-exsufflation was calibrated and validated annually by the manufacturer. 27 If manufacturer standards for calibration are not followed, then the accuracy of the results may be affected. It should be noted that calibration and validation represent two different processes. 4 Both should be described as applicable.

In addition to equipment, identify all drugs, chemicals, gases, or other materials used specifically for the study. The details for drugs and gases should include the concentration, dose, frequency, and route of administration. Gases should also note the flow used. Chemicals should be noted with the name and concentration as applicable. Use the generic name for drugs. If the trade name for a drug is relevant to the study, then follow the same process for identifying equipment brands and manufacturer information and use the generic name after initial identification. Preparation information may be needed in some cases. For example, detailed preparation information was provided for the bacteriophage used in the animal study conducted by Ring et al. 25 The process for how the bacteriophage was prepared was described in detail as well as the amounts used for the study.

Study Procedures

The methods section should explicitly detail all procedures, treatments, or interventions used in the study. This portion of the methods section describes how study procedures were performed, the chronological order of procedures, measurements or calculations made, and the specific data elements collected. A rationale may be needed for some procedures, depending on the audience. 6 Outcome measures are often included in the subsection for study procedures, but some authors report them in the overall description for study design.

A comprehensive explanation of the procedures is vital for providing adequate details for reproducibility and validity regardless of the study design. A retrospective cohort study investigated outcomes of children treated with continuous albuterol that contains benzalkonium chloride and preservative-free solutions. 28 Collected data were clearly stated and included subject demographics, diagnosis, mortality risk score, albuterol dose and duration, use of adjunctive therapies, and respiratory support. The methods section for this paper also reported the source of the data extraction (electronic medical records, database, manual chart review) and the process for how therapies were initiated, escalated, and de-escalated (intensivist discretion). 28 The basis for the use of therapies in this study is an important consideration for generalizability because practices vary among institutions and some care might involve the use of protocols.

Diagrams and flow charts can be helpful for illustrating processes or workflow. An evaluation of sputum volume obtained with different cough augmentation techniques outlined the protocol in an illustrated timeline for the sequence of interventions and data collection ( Fig. 3 ). 29 The timeline provides clear information for the procedures that were done, when they were done, and the data elements collected. Data were collected at baseline, at the end of the intervention, and then 1 h after the intervention, followed by a minimum 4-h washout period before the second intervention and data collection. 29 Details with regard to who performed the interventions (5 experienced respiratory clinicians), how they were administered (cough augmentation technique and settings), and subject information (positioning) were comprehensively described.

Illustrated timeline of study protocol that depicts chronological order. From Reference 29.

Measurements obtained during study procedures should be identified along with a description of how they were obtained and the devices used. For example, the same study measured ventilator parameters before, during, and after interventions by using a Fluxmed GrH monitor (MBMED, Buenos Aires, Argentina). 29 Procedures for measurements or techniques with established references do not have to be described in detail and can be omitted if the procedure could be repeated without the specific details. 6 , 12 , 14 This is a common practice for measurements obtained during spirometry. In those instances, provide the reference for the previous work without providing all of the additional details. In a study that aimed to correlate baseline spirometry with airway hyper-responsiveness in methacholine challenge, the reported testing was performed according to published guidelines. 30 The guideline was referenced without providing all the specifics. On the contrary, studies that used novel methods would need to be further described. 6

The outcome measures that address the research question should be clearly stated. Outcome measures are the dependent or response variables assessed to evaluate the impact of the research that is established before beginning the study. 6 , 8 Outcome measures may include both primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome is the main measure of the research question, and secondary outcomes provide additional information for interpreting results. The retrospective evaluation of different albuterol solutions used ICU and hospital length of stay as primary outcomes and duration of continuous albuterol, use and duration of adjunctive therapies, and need for mechanical ventilation as secondary outcomes. 28 The primary outcome was sputum volume for the trial that assessed cough augmentation techniques, and secondary outcomes were respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics. 29

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis component is typically included as the last part of the methods section. This subsection describes how the collected data were analyzed through identification of the statistical tests that were used and the P value threshold for statistical significance. A clinical trial that evaluated the effect of endotracheal tube scraping during mechanical ventilation reported that categorical variables were analyzed with the chi-square or Fisher exact test, and continuous variables were presented as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range) based on distribution and analyzed with t test or Mann-Whitney test. 31 P < .05 was considered significant. The statistical analysis section of this paper distinctly identified the tests used to analyze specific data points and provided an explanation for when mean or median was reported.

The statistical analysis should also describe how the power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size. Justification for the approach should be provided when needed. For example, the study that evaluated the effect of endotracheal tube scraping calculated sample size for each treatment group based on previous institutional data for the mean duration of mechanical ventilation and determined that each group needed 136 subjects with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80. 31 Citing references for the rationale and justification for the selected statistical tests is also an approach to support the choice of test. The previously noted evaluation of methacholine reactivity used a reference to support the use of partition analysis. 30 The software package and version used for data analysis should also be specified in the data analysis portion of the methods section. 16

A Methods Model

Several publications were used throughout this paper to demonstrate the different elements of the methods section of a research paper. A summary of each of those elements and the individual components comprised within each subsection adapted from the endotracheal tube scraping clinical trial are included in Table 2 . 31 It is important to note how some items were further described in the text, such as the technique for airway suctioning, the definition of a successful spontaneous breathing trial, an explanation for extubation outcome, the elements of the ventilator-associated event prevention bundle, and how ventilator-associated events were defined. These specifics provide additional information to help determine validity and generalizability, and highlight the importance of including enough detail to duplicate the study.

Summary of Methods Elements and Details from a Published Paper

The methods section is an important part of a manuscript because it provides information on the validity of the study. One of the main reasons for manuscript rejection is an inadequate description of the methods. Enough detail must be provided so others could repeat the study and reproduce the results, similar to following a recipe. The methods section should be structured for logical and chronological flow, and be written in past tense. There are multiple components of the methods section that must be adequately described and thoroughly detailed to provide an understanding of how the results were obtained to interpret the findings. Subheadings can be helpful for organizing the methods section into subsections when there is a considerable amount of information to report, but subheadings should be used judiciously. A well-written methods section will guide the reader through the research process and provide adequate information to evaluate study validity and credibility of the results as well as reproduce the work.

Correspondence: Denise Willis MSc RRT RRT-NPS AE-C FAARC, Respiratory Care Services, Arkansas Children’s Hospital, 1 Children’s Way, Slot 303, Little Rock, AR 72202. E-mail: WillisLD{at}archildrens.org

Ms Willis is a Section Editor for R espiratory C are .

Ms Willis presented a version of this paper at the symposium Research in Respiratory Care at AARC Congress 2022 held November 8, 2022, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Stenson JF ,
Lendner M ,
Annesley TM
Ghasemi A ,
Bahadoran Z ,
Zadeh-Vakili A ,
Montazeri SA ,
Hosseinpanah F
Azevedo LF ,
Canário-Almeida F ,
Almeida Fonseca J ,
Costa-Pereira A ,
Hespanhol V
16. ↵ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors . Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals . Updated May 2022 . https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ . Accessed July 6, 2023
Zaccagnini M ,
20. ↵ United States Department of Health and Human Services . 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46 . https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html . Accessed July 6, 2023
21. ↵ National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory and Animal Welfare . Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . https://olawnihgov/policies-laws/phs-policyhtm 2015 . Accessed July 6, 2023.
Truumees M ,
Tonzola D ,
Cerrone F ,
Zimmerman D ,
Goodfellow LT
Pestana K ,
Sombatsaphay V ,
Morais CCA ,
Mueller AL ,
Al-Subu AM ,
Friestrom E ,
Langkamp MR ,
Yngsdal-Krenz RA ,
Martinez-Alejos R ,
Marti J-D ,
Li Bassi G ,
Gonzalez-Anton D ,
Pilar-Diaz X ,
Reginault T ,
Hunninghake JC ,
McCullough SB ,
McCann ET ,
Charlton ME ,
Villanueva KA ,

In this issue

Table of Contents
Table of Contents (PDF)
Cover (PDF)
Index by author

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

EndNote (tagged)
EndNote 8 (xml)
RefWorks Tagged
Ref Manager

Tweet Widget
Facebook Like
Google Plus One

Jump to section

Educational interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise the use of caesarean section: What are the essential elements? A qualitative comparative analysis

Rana Islamiah Zahroh ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7831-2336 1 ,
Katy Sutcliffe ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5469-8649 2 ,
Dylan Kneale ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7016-978X 2 ,
Martha Vazquez Corona ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2061-9540 1 ,
Ana Pilar Betrán ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5631-5883 3 ,
Newton Opiyo ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2709-3609 3 ,
Caroline S. E. Homer ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7454-3011 4 &
Meghan A. Bohren ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4179-4682 1

BMC Public Health volume 23 , Article number: 1851 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1227 Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Caesarean section (CS) rates are increasing globally, posing risks to women and babies. To reduce CS, educational interventions targeting pregnant women have been implemented globally, however, their effectiveness is varied. To optimise benefits of these interventions, it is important to understand which intervention components influence success. In this study, we aimed to identify essential intervention components that lead to successful implementation of interventions focusing on pregnant women to optimise CS use.

We re-analysed existing systematic reviews that were used to develop and update WHO guidelines on non-clinical interventions to optimise CS. To identify if certain combinations of intervention components (e.g., how the intervention was delivered, and contextual characteristics) are associated with successful implementation, we conducted a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). We defined successful interventions as interventions that were able to reduce CS rates. We included 36 papers, comprising 17 CS intervention studies and an additional 19 sibling studies (e.g., secondary analyses, process evaluations) reporting on these interventions to identify intervention components. We conducted QCA in six stages: 1) Identifying conditions and calibrating the data; 2) Constructing truth tables, 3) Checking quality of truth tables; 4) Identifying parsimonious configurations through Boolean minimization; 5) Checking quality of the solution; 6) Interpretation of solutions. We used existing published qualitative evidence synthesis to develop potential theories driving intervention success.

We found successful interventions were those that leveraged social or peer support through group-based intervention delivery, provided communication materials to women, encouraged emotional support by partner or family participation, and gave women opportunities to interact with health providers. Unsuccessful interventions were characterised by the absence of at least two of these components.

We identified four key essential intervention components which can lead to successful interventions targeting women to reduce CS. These four components are 1) group-based delivery, 2) provision of IEC materials, 3) partner or family member involvement, and 4) opportunity for women to interact with health providers. Maternal health services and hospitals aiming to better prepare women for vaginal birth and reduce CS can consider including the identified components to optimise health and well-being benefits for the woman and baby.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In recent years, caesarean section (CS) rates have increased globally [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. CS can be a life-saving procedure when vaginal birth is not possible; however, it comes with higher risks both in the short- and long-term for women and babies [ 1 , 5 ]. Women with CS have increased risks of surgical complications, complications in future pregnancies, subfertility, bowel obstruction, and chronic pain [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Similarly, babies born through CS have increased risks of hypoglycaemia, respiratory problems, allergies and altered immunity [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. At a population level, CS rates exceeding 15% are unlikely to reduce mortality rates [ 1 , 12 ]. Despite these risks, an analysis across 154 countries reported a global average CS rate of 21.1% in 2018, projected to increase to 28.5% by 2030 [ 3 ].

There are many reasons for the increasing CS rates, and these vary between and within countries. Increasingly, non-clinical factors across different societal dimensions and stakeholders (e.g. women and communities, health providers, and health systems) are contributing to this increase [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Women may prefer CS over vaginal birth due to fear of labour or vaginal birth, previous negative experience of childbirth, perceived increased risks of vaginal birth, beliefs about an auspicious or convenient day of birth, or beliefs that caesarean section is safer, quick, and painless compared to vaginal birth [ 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Interventions targeting pregnant women to reduce CS have been implemented globally. A Cochrane intervention review synthesized evidence from non-clinical interventions targeting pregnant women and family, providers, and health systems to reduce unnecessary CS, and identified 15 interventions targeting women [ 18 ]. Interventions targeting women primarily focused on improving women’s knowledge around birth, improving women’s ability to cope during labour, and decreasing women’s stress related to labour through childbirth education, and decision aids for women with previous CS [ 18 ]. These types of interventions aim to reduce the concerns of pregnant women and their partners around childbirth, and prepare them for vaginal birth.

The effectiveness of interventions targeting women in reducing CS is mixed [ 18 , 19 ]. Plausible explanations for this limited success include the multifactorial nature of the factors driving increases in CS, as well as the contextual characteristics of the interventions, which may include the study environment, participant characteristics, intensity of exposure to the intervention and method of implementation. Understanding which intervention components are essential influencers of the success of the interventions is conducive to optimising benefits. This study used a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) approach to re-analyse evidence from existing systematic reviews to identify essential intervention components that lead to the successful implementation of non-clinical interventions focusing on pregnant women to optimise the use of CS. Updating and re-analysing existing systematic reviews using new analytical frameworks may help to explore the heterogeneity in effects and ascertain why some studies appear to be effective while others are not.

Data sources, case selection, and defining outcomes

Developing a logic model.

We developed a logic model to guide our understanding of different pathways and intervention components potentially leading to successful implementation (Additional file 1 ). The logic model was developed based on published qualitative evidence syntheses and systematic reviews [ 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. The logic model depicts the desired outcome of reduced CS rates in low-risk women (at the time of admission for birth, these women are typically represented by Robson groups 1–4 [ 25 ] and are women with term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies without a previous CS) and works backwards to understand what inputs and processes are needed to achieve the desired outcome. Our logic model shows multiple pathways to success and highlights the interactions between different levels of factors (women, providers, societal, health system) (Additional file 1 ). Based on the logic model, we have separated our QCA into two clusters of interventions: 1) interventions targeting women, and 2) interventions targeting health providers. The results of analysis on interventions targeting health providers have been published elsewhere [ 26 ]. The logic model was also used to inform the potential important components that influence success.

Identifying data sources and selecting cases

We re-analysed the systematic reviews which were used to inform the development and update of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. In 2018, WHO issued global guidance on non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary CS, with interventions designed to target three different levels or stakeholders: women, health providers, and health systems [ 27 ]. As part of the guideline recommendations, a series of systematic reviews about CS interventions were conducted: 1) a Cochrane intervention review of effectiveness by Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and 2) three qualitative evidence syntheses exploring key stakeholder perspectives and experiences of interventions focusing on women and communities, health professionals, and health organisations, facilities and systems by Kingdon et al. (2018) [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Later on, Opiyo and colleagues (2020) published a scoping review of financial and regulatory interventions to optimise the use of CS [ 23 ].

Therefore, the primary data sources of this QCA are the intervention studies included in Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and Opiyo et al. (2020) [ 23 ]. We used these two systematic reviews as not only they are comprehensive, but they were also used to inform the WHO guidelines development. A single intervention study is referred to as a “case”. Eligible cases were intervention studies focusing on pregnant women and aimed to reduce or optimise the use of CS. No restrictions on study design were imposed in the QCA. Therefore, we also assessed the eligibility of intervention studies excluded from Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and Opiyo et al. (2020) [ 23 ] due to ineligible study designs (such as cohort study, uncontrolled before and after study, interrupted time series with fewer than three data points), as these studies could potentially show other pathways to successful implementation. We complemented these intervention studies with additional intervention studies published since the last review updates in 2018 and 2020, to include intervention studies that are likely to meet the review inclusion criteria for future review updates. No further search was conducted as QCA is suitable for medium-N cases, approximately around 10–50 cases, and inclusion of more studies may threaten study rigour [ 28 ].

Once eligible studies were selected, we searched for their ‘sibling studies’. Sibling studies are studies linked to the included intervention studies, such as formative research or process evaluations which may have been published separately. Sibling studies can provide valuable additional information about study context, intervention components, and implementation outcomes (e.g. acceptability, fidelity, adherence, dosage), which may not be well described in a single article about intervention effectiveness. We searched for sibling studies using the following steps: 1) reference list search of the intervention studies included in Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and Opiyo et al. (2020) [ 23 ], 2) reference list search of the qualitative studies included in Kingdon et al. (2018) reviews [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]; and 3) forward reference search of the intervention studies (through “Cited by” function) in Scopus and Web of Science. Sibling studies were included if they included any information on intervention components or implementation outcomes, regardless of the methodology used. One author conducted the study screening independently (RIZ), and 10% of the screening was double-checked by a second author (MAB). Disagreements during screening were discussed until consensus, and with the rest of the author team if needed.

Defining outcomes

We assessed all outcomes related to the mode of birth in the studies included in the Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and Opiyo et al. (2020) [ 23 ] reviews. Based on the consistency of outcome reporting, we selected “overall CS rate” as the primary outcome of interest due to its presence across studies. We planned to rank the rate ratio across these studies to select the 10 most successful and unsuccessful intervention studies. However, due to heterogeneity in how CS outcomes were reported across studies (e.g. odds ratios, rate ratios, percentages across different intervention stages), the final categorisation of successful or unsuccessful interventions is based on whether the CS rate decreased, based on the precision of the confidence interval or p-value (successful, coded as 1), or CS rate increased or did not change (unsuccessful, coded as 0).

Assessing risk of bias in intervention studies

All intervention studies eligible for inclusion were assessed for risk of bias. All studies included in Chen et al. (2018) and Opiyo et al. (2020) already had risk of bias assessed and reported [ 18 , 23 ], and we used these assessments. Additional intervention studies outside the included studies on these reviews were assessed using the same tools depending on the type of evidence (two randomized controlled trials and one uncontrolled before and after study), and details of the risk of bias assessment results can be found in Additional file 2 . We excluded studies with a high risk of bias to ensure that the analysis was based on high-quality studies and to enhance the ability of researchers to develop deep case knowledge by limiting the overall number of studies.

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

QCA was first developed and used in political sciences and has since been extended to systematic reviews of complex health interventions [ 24 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Despite the term “qualitative”, QCA is not a typical qualitative analysis, and is often conceptualised as a methodology that bridges qualitative and quantitative methodologies based on its process, data used and theoretical standpoint [ 24 ]. Here, QCA is used to identify if certain configurations or combinations of intervention components (e.g. participants, types of interventions, contextual characteristics, and intervention delivery) are associated with the desired outcome [ 31 ]. These intervention components are referred to as “conditions” in the QCA methodology. Whilst statistical synthesis methods may be used to examine intervention heterogeneity in systematic reviews, such as meta-regression, QCA is a particularly suitable method to understand complex interventions like those aiming to optimise CS, as it allows for multiple overlapping pathways to causality [ 31 ]. Moreover, QCA allows the exploration of different combinations of conditions, rather than relying on a single condition leading to intervention effectiveness [ 31 ]. Although meta-regression allows for the assessment of multiple conditions, a sufficient number of studies may not be available to conduct the analysis. In complex interventions, such as interventions aiming to optimise the use of CS, single condition or standard meta-analysis may be less likely to yield usable and nuanced information about what intervention components are more or less likely to yield success [ 31 ].

QCA uses ‘set theory’ to systematically compare characteristics of the cases (e.g. intervention in the case of systematic reviews) in relation to the outcomes [ 31 , 32 ]. This means QCA compares the characteristics of the successful ‘cases’ (e.g. interventions that are effective) to those unsuccessful ‘cases’ (e.g. interventions that are not effective). The comparison is conducted using a scoring system based on ‘set membership’ [ 31 , 32 ]. In this scoring, conditions and outcomes are coded based on the extent to which a certain feature is present or absent to form set membership scores [ 31 , 32 ]. There are two scoring systems in QCA: 1) crisp set QCA (csQCA) and 2) fuzzy set QCA (fsQCA). csQCA assigns binary scores of 0 (“fully out” to set membership for cases with certain conditions) and 1 (“fully in” to set membership for cases with certain conditions), while fsQCA assigns ordinal scoring of conditions and outcomes, permitting partial membership scores between 0 and 1 [ 31 , 32 ]. For example, using fsQCA we may assign a five-level scoring system (0, 0.33, 0.5, 0.67, 1), where 0.33 would indicate “more out” than “in” to the set of membership, and 0.67 would indicate “more in” than “out”, and 0.5 would indicate ambiguity (i.e. a lack of information about whether a case was “in” or “out”) [ 31 , 32 ]. In our analysis, we used the combination of both csQCA and fsQCA to calibrate our data. This approach was necessary because some conditions were better suited to binary options using csQCA, while others were more complex, depending on the distribution of cases, and required fsQCA to capture the necessary information. In our final analysis, however, the conditions run on the final analysis were all using the csQCA scoring system.

Two relationships can be investigated using QCA [ 24 , 31 ]. First, if all instances of successful interventions share the same condition(s), this suggests these features are ‘necessary’ to trigger successful outcomes [ 24 , 31 ]. Second, if all instances of a particular condition are associated with successful interventions, this suggests these conditions are ‘sufficient’ for triggering successful outcomes [ 24 , 31 ]. In this QCA, we were interested to explore the relationship of sufficiency: that is, to assess the various combinations of intervention components that can trigger successful outcomes. We were interested in sufficiency because our logic model (explained further below) highlighted the multiple pathways that can lead to a CS and different interventions that may optimise the use of CS along those pathways, which suggested that it would be unlikely for all successful interventions to share the same conditions. We calculated the degree of sufficiency using consistency measures, which evaluate the frequency in which conditions are present when the desired outcome is achieved [ 31 , 32 ]. The conditions with a consistency score of at least 0.8 were considered sufficient in triggering successful interventions [ 31 , 32 ]. At present, there is no tool available for reporting guidelines in the re-analysis of systematic reviews using QCA, however, CARU-QCA is currently being developed for this purpose [ 33 ]. QCA was conducted using R programming software with a package developed by Thiem & Duşa (2013) and QCA with R guidebook [ 32 ]. QCA was conducted in six stages based on Thomas et al. (2014) [ 31 ] and explained below.

QCA stage 1: Identifying conditions, building data tables and calibration

We used a deductive and inductive process to determine the potential conditions (intervention components) that may trigger successful implementation. Conditions were first derived deductively using the developed logic model (Additional file 1 ). We then added additional conditions inductively using Intervention Component Analysis from the intervention studies [ 34 ], and qualitative evidence (“view”) synthesis [ 22 ] using Melendez-Torres’s (2018) approach [ 35 ]. Intervention Component Analysis is a methodological approach that examines factors affecting implementation through reflections from the trialist, which is typically presented in the discussion section of a published trial [ 34 ]. Examples of conditions identified in the Intervention Component Analysis include using an individualised approach, interaction with health providers, policies that encourage CS and acknowledgement of women’s previous birth experiences. After consolidating or merging similar conditions, a total of 52 conditions were selected and extracted from each included intervention and analysed in this QCA (Details of conditions and definitions generated for this study can be found in Additional files 3 and 4 ). We adapted the coding framework from Harris et al. (2019) [ 24 ] by adapting coding rules and six domains that were used, to organize the 52 conditions and make more sense of the data. These six domains are broadly classified as 1) context and participants, 2) intervention design, 3) program content, 4) method of engagement, 5) health system factors, and 6) process outcomes.

One author (RIZ) extracted data relevant to the conditions for each included study into a data table, which was then double-reviewed by two other authors (MVC, MAB). The data table is a matrix in which each case is represented in a row, and columns are used to represent the conditions. Following data extraction, calibration rules using either csQCA or fsQCA (e.g. group-based intervention delivery condition: yes = 1 (present), no = 0 (absent)) were developed through consultation with all authors. We developed a table listing the conditions and rules of coding the conditions, by either direct or transformational assignment of quantitative and qualitative data [ 24 , 32 ] (Additional file 3 depicts the calibration rules). The data tables were then calibrated by applying scores, to explore the extent to which interventions have ‘set membership’ with the outcome or conditions of interest. During this iterative process, the calibration criteria were explicitly defined, emerging from the literature and the cases themselves. It is important to note, that maximum ambiguity is typically scored as 0.5 in QCA, however, we decided it would be more appropriate to assume that if a condition was not reported it was unlikely to be a feature of the intervention, so we treated not reported as “absence” that is we coded it 0.

QCA stage 2: Constructing truth tables

Truth tables are an analytical tool used in QCA to analyse associations between configurations of conditions and outcomes. Whereas the data table represents individual cases (rows) and individual conditions (columns) – the truth table synthesises this data to examine configurations – with each row representing a different configuration of the conditions. The columns indicate a) which conditions are featured in the configuration in that row, b) how many of the cases are represented by that configuration, and c) their association with the outcome.

We first constructed the truth tables based on context and participants, intervention designs, program content, and method of engagement; however, no configurations to trigger successful interventions were observed. Instead, we observed limited diversity, meaning there were many instances in which the configurations were unsupported by cases, likely due to the presence of too many conditions in the truth tables. We used the learning from these truth tables to return to the literature to explore potential explanatory theories about what conditions are important from the perspectives of participants and trialists to trigger successful interventions (adhering to the ‘utilisation of view’ perspective [ 35 ]). Through this process, we found that women and communities liked to learn new information about childbirth, and desired emotional support from partners and health providers while learning [ 22 ]. They also appreciated educational interventions that provide opportunities for discussion and dialogue with health providers and align with current clinical practice and advice from health providers [ 22 ]. Therefore, three models of truth tables were iteratively constructed and developed based on three important hypothesised theories about how the interventions should be delivered: 1) how birth information was provided to women, 2) emotional support was provided to women (including interactions between women and providers), and 3) a consolidated model examining the interactions of important conditions identified from model 1 and 2. We also conducted a sub-analysis of interventions targeting both women and health providers or systems (‘multi-target interventions’). This sub-analysis was conducted to explore if similar conditions were observed in triggering successful interventions in multi-target interventions, among the components for women only. Table 1 presents the list of truth tables that were iteratively constructed and refined.

QCA stage 3: Checking quality of truth tables

We iteratively developed and improved the quality of truth tables by checking the configurations of successful and unsuccessful interventions, as recommended by Thomas et al. (2014) [ 31 ]. This includes by assessing the number of studies clustering to each configuration, and exploring the presence of any contradictory results between successful and unsuccessful interventions. We found contradictory configurations across the five truth tables, which were resolved by considering the theoretical perspectives and iteratively refining the truth tables.

QCA stage 4: Identifying parsimonious configurations through Boolean minimization

Once we determined that the truth tables were suitable for further analysis, we used Boolean minimisation to explore pathways resulting in successful intervention through the configurations of different conditions [ 31 ]. We simplified the “complex solution” of the pathways to a “parsimonious solution” and an “intermediate solution” by incorporating logical remainders (configurations where no cases were observed) [ 36 ].

QCA stage 5: Checking the quality of the solution

We presented the intermediate solution as the final solution instead of the most parsimonious solution, as it is most closely aligned with the underlying theory. We checked consistency and coverage scores to assess if the pathways identified were sufficient to trigger success. We also checked the intermediate solution by negating the outcome to see if it predicts the observed solutions.

QCA stage 6: Interpretation of solutions

We iteratively interpreted the results of the findings through discussions among the QCA team. This reflexive approach ensured that the results of the analysis considered the perspectives from the literature discourse, methodological approach, and that the results were coherent with the current understanding of the phenomenon.

Overview of included studies

Out of 79 intervention studies assessed by Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and Opiyo et al. (2020) [ 23 ], 17 intervention studies targeted women and are included, comprising 11 interventions targeting only women [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] and six interventions targeting both women and health providers or systems [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. From 17 included studies, 19 sibling studies were identified [ 43 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. Thus, a total of 36 papers from 17 intervention studies are included in this QCA (See Fig. 1 : PRISMA Flowchart).

PRISMA flowchart. *Sibling studies: studies that were conducted in the same settings, participants, and timeframe; **Intervention components: information on intervention input, activities, and outputs, including intervention context and other characteristics

The 11 interventions targeting women comprised of five successful interventions [ 37 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ] and six unsuccessful interventions [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] in reducing CS. Sixteen sibling studies were identified, from five out of 11 included interventions [ 37 , 41 , 43 , 70 , 71 ]. Included studies were conducted in six countries across North America (2 from Canada [ 38 ] and 1 from United States of America [ 71 ]), Asia–Pacific (1 from Australia [ 41 ]), 5 from Iran [ 39 , 40 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]), Europe (2 from Finland [ 37 , 42 ], 1 from United Kingdom [ 43 ]). Six studies were conducted in high-income countries, while five studies were conducted in upper-middle-income countries (all from Iran). All 11 studies targeted women, with three studies also explicitly targeting women’s partners [ 68 , 69 , 71 ]. One study delivering psychoeducation allowed women to bring any family members to accompany them during the intervention but did not specifically target partners [ 37 ]. All 11 studies delivered childbirth education, with four delivering general antenatal education [ 38 , 40 , 68 , 69 ], six delivering psychoeducation [ 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 70 , 71 ], and one implementing decision aids [ 43 ]. All studies were included in Chen et al. (2018), and some risks of bias were identified [ 18 ] (Additional file 2).

The multi-target interventions consisted of five successful interventions [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] and one unsuccessful intervention [ 49 ]. Sibling studies were only identified from one study [ 48 ]. The interventions were delivered in five countries across: South America (1 from Brazil [ 46 ]), Asia–Pacific (4 from China [ 44 , 45 , 47 , 49 ]), Europe (1 from Italy [ 48 ], 1 from Ireland [ 48 ], and 1 from Germany [ 48 ]). Three studies were conducted in high-income countries and five studies in upper middle-income countries. The multi-target interventions targeted women, health providers and health organisations. For this analysis, however, we only consider the components of the intervention that targeted women, which was typically childbirth education. One study came from Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] and was graded as having some concerns [ 47 ], two studies from Opiyo et al. (2020) [ 23 ] were graded as having no serious concerns [ 45 , 46 ], and three studies are newly published studies assessed as low [ 44 ] and some concerns about risk of bias [ 48 , 49 ] Table 2 and 3 show characteristics of included studies.

The childbirth education interventions included information about mode of birth, birth process, mental health and coping strategies, pain relief methods, and partners’ roles in birth. Most interventions were delivered in group settings, and only in three studies they were delivered on a one-to-one basis [ 38 , 41 , 42 ]. Only one study explicitly stated that the intervention was individualised to a woman’s unique needs and experiences [ 38 ].

Overall, there was limited theory used to design interventions among the included studies: less than half of interventions (7/17) explicitly used theory in designing the intervention. Among the seven interventions that used theory in intervention development, the theories included the health promotion-disease prevention framework [ 38 ], midwifery counselling framework [ 41 ], cognitive behavioural therapy [ 42 ], Ost’s applied relaxation [ 70 ], conceptual model of parenting [ 71 ], attachment and social cognitive theories [ 37 ], and healthcare improvement scale-up framework [ 46 ]. The remaining 10 studies only relied on previously published studies to design the interventions. We identified very limited process evaluation or implementation outcome evidence related to the included interventions, which is a limitation of the field of CS and clinical interventions more broadly.

Qualitative comparative analysis

Model 1 – How birth information was provided to women

Model 1 is constructed based on the finding from Kingdon et al. (2018) [ 22 ] that women and communities enjoy learning new birth information, as it opens up new ways of thinking about vaginal birth and CS. Learning new information allows them to understand better the benefits and risks of CS and vaginal births, as well as increase their knowledge about CS [ 22 ].

We used four conditions in constructing model 1 truth table: 1) the provision of information, education, and communication (IEC) materials on what to expect during labour and birth, 2) type of education delivered (antenatal education or psychoeducation), and 3) group-based intervention delivery. We explored this model considering other conditions, such as type of information provided (e.g. information about mode of birth including birth process, mental health and coping strategies, pain relief), delivery technique (e.g. didactic, practical) and frequency and duration of intervention delivery; however these additional conditions did not result in configurations.

Of 16 possible configurations, we identified seven configurations (Table 4 ). The first two row shows perfect consistency of configurations (inclusion = 1) in five studies [ 37 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ] in which all conditions are present, except antenatal education or psychoeducation. The remaining configurations are unsuccessful interventions. Interestingly, when either IEC materials or group-based intervention delivery are present (but not both), implementation is likely to be unsuccessful (rows 3–7).

Boolean minimisation identified two intermediate pathways to successful interventions (Fig. 2 ). The two pathways are similar, except for one condition: type of education. The antenatal education or psychoeducation materials is the content tailored to the type of women they target. Therefore, from the two pathways, we can see that the presence of distribution of IEC materials on birth information and group-based intervention delivery of either antenatal education to the general population of women (e.g. not groups of women with specific risks or conditions) or psychoeducation to women with fear of birth trigger successful interventions. From this solution, we can see that the successful interventions are consistently characterised by the presence of both IEC materials and group-based intervention delivery.

Intermediate pathways from model 1 that trigger successful interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise CS. In QCA, asterisk (*) denotes an ‘AND’ relationship; Inclusion score (InclS), also known as consistency, indicates the degree to which the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is sufficient relation between the configuration and the outcome; Proportional Reduction in Inconsistency (PRI) refers to the extent in which a configuration is sufficient in triggering successful outcome as well as the negation of the outcome; Coverage score (CovS) refers to percentage of cases in which the configuration is valid

Model 2 – Emotional support was provided to women

Model 2 was constructed based on the theory that women desire emotional support alongside the communication of information about childbirth [ 22 ]. This includes emotional support from husbands or partners, health professional, or doulas [ 22 ]. Furthermore, Kingdon et al. (2018) describe the importance of two-way conversation and dialogue between women and providers during pregnancy care, particularly to ensure the opportunity for discussion [ 22 ]. Interventions may generate more questions than they answered, creating the need and desire of women to have more dialogue with health professionals [ 22 ]. Women considered intervention content to be most useful when it complements clinical care, is consistent with advice from health professionals and provides a basis for more informed, meaningful dialogue between women and care providers [ 22 ].

Based on this underlying theory, we constructed model 3 truth table by considering three conditions representative of providing emotional support to women, including partner or family member involvement, group-based intervention delivery which provide social or peer support to women, and opportunity for women to interact with health providers. Of 8 possible configurations, we identified six configurations (Table 5 ). The first three rows represent successful interventions with perfect consistency (inclusion = 1). The first row shows successful interventions with all conditions present. The second and third row shows successful interventions with all conditions except partner or family member involvement or interaction with health providers. The remaining rows represent unsuccessful interventions, where at least two conditions are absent.

Boolean minimisation identified two intermediate pathways to successful interventions (Fig. 3 ). In the first pathway, the partner or family members involvement and group-based intervention delivery enable successful interventions. In the second pathway, however, when partner or family members are not involved, successful interventions can happen only when interaction with health providers is included alongside group-based intervention. From these two pathways, we can see that group-based intervention, involvement of partner and family member, and opportunity for women to interact with providers seem to be important in driving intervention success.

Intermediate pathways from model 2 that trigger successful interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise CS. In QCA, asterisk (*) denotes an ‘AND’ relationship; Inclusion score (InclS), also known as consistency, indicates the degree to which the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is sufficient relation between the configuration and the outcome; Proportional Reduction in Inconsistency (PRI) refers to the extent in which a configuration is sufficient in triggering successful outcome as well as the negation of the outcome; Coverage score (CovS) refers to percentage of cases in which the configuration is valid

Consolidated model – Essential conditions to prompt successful interventions focusing on women

Using the identified important conditions observed in models 1 and 2, we constructed a consolidated model to examine the final essential conditions which could prompt successful educational interventions targeting women. We merged and tested four conditions: the provision of IEC materials on what to expect during labour and birth, group-based intervention delivery, partner or family member involvement, and opportunity for interaction between women and health providers.

Of the 16 possible configurations, we identified six configurations (Table 6 ). The first three rows show configurations resulting in successful interventions with perfect consistency (inclusion = 1). The first row shows successful interventions with all conditions present; the second and third rows show successful interventions with all conditions present except interaction with health providers or partner or family member involvement. The remaining three rows are configurations of unsuccessful interventions, missing at least two conditions, including the consistent absence of partner or family member involvement.

Boolean minimisation identified two intermediate pathways to successful intervention (Fig. 4 ). The first pathway shows that the opportunity for women to interact with health providers, provision of IEC materials, and group-based intervention delivery prompts successful interventions. The second pathway, however, shows that when there is no opportunity for women to interact with health providers, it is important to have partner or family member involvement alongside group-based intervention delivery and provision of IEC materials. These two pathways suggest that the delivery of educational interventions accompanied by provision of IEC materials and presence of emotional support for women during the intervention is important to trigger successful interventions. These pathways also emphasise that emotional support for women during the intervention can come from either partner, family member, or health provider. For the consolidated model, we did not simplify the solution further, as the intermediate solution is more theoretically sound compared to the most parsimonious solution.

Intermediate pathways from consolidated model that trigger successful interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise CS. In QCA, asterisk (*) denotes an ‘AND’ relationship; Inclusion score (InclS), also known as consistency, indicates the degree to which the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is sufficient relation between the configuration and the outcome; Proportional Reduction in Inconsistency (PRI) refers to the extent in which a configuration is sufficient in triggering successful outcome as well as the negation of the outcome; Coverage score (CovS) refers to percentage of cases in which the configuration is valid.

Sub-analysis – Interventions targeting both women and health providers or systems

In this sub-analysis, we run the important conditions identified from the consolidated model, added condition of multi-target intervention, and applied it to 17 interventions: 11 interventions targeting women, and six interventions targeting both women and health providers or systems (multi-target interventions).

Of 32 possible configurations, we identified eight configurations (Table 7 ). The first four rows show configurations with successful interventions with perfect consistency (inclusion = 1). The first row is where all the multi-target interventions are clustered, except the unsuccessful intervention Zhang (2020) [ 49 ], and where all the conditions are present. All the conditions in the second to fourth rows are present, except multi-target interventions (all rows), interaction with health providers (third row) and partner and family member involvement (fourth row). The remaining rows are all configurations to unsuccessful interventions, where at least three conditions are missing, except row 8, which is a single case row. This case is the only multi-target intervention that is unsuccessful and in which partner or family members were not involved.

The Boolean minimisation identified two intermediate pathways (Fig. 5 ). The first pathway shows that partner or family involvement, provision of IEC materials, and group-based intervention delivery prompt successful interventions. The first pathway is comprised of all five successful multi-target interventions [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] and four of 11 interventions targeting only women [ 37 , 68 , 69 , 71 ]. The second pathway shows that when multi-target interventions are absent, but when interaction with health providers is present, alongside provision of IEC materials and group-based intervention delivery, it prompts successful interventions (3/11 interventions targeting women only [ 37 , 69 , 70 ]). The first pathway shows that there are successful configurations with and without multi-target interventions. Therefore, similar to the interventions targeting women, when implementing multi-target interventions, intervention components targeting women are more likely to be successful when partners or family members are involved, interventions are implemented through group-based intervention delivery, IEC materials were provided, and there is an opportunity for women to interact with health providers.

Intermediate pathways from multi-target interventions sub-analysis that trigger successful interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise CS. In QCA, asterisk (*) denotes an ‘AND’ relationship; Inclusion score (InclS), also known as consistency, indicates the degree to which the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is sufficient relation between the configuration and the outcome; Proportional Reduction in Inconsistency (PRI) refers to the extent in which a configuration is sufficient in triggering successful outcome as well as the negation of the outcome; Coverage score (CovS) refers to percentage of cases in which the configuration is valid

To summarise, there are four essential intervention components which trigger successful educational interventions focusing on pregnant women to reduce CS, this includes 1) group-based intervention delivery, 2) provision of IEC materials on what to expect during labour and birth, 3) partner or family member involvement on the intervention, and 4) opportunity for women to interact with health providers. These conditions do not work in siloed or independently but instead work jointly as parts of configurations to enable successful interventions.

Our extensive QCA identified configurations of essential intervention components which are sufficient to trigger successful interventions to optimised CS. Educational interventions focusing on women were successful by: 1) leveraging social or peer support through group-based intervention delivery, 2) improving women’s knowledge and awareness of what to expect during labour and birth, 3) ensuring women have emotional support through partner or family participation in the intervention, and 4) providing opportunities for women to interact with health providers. We found that the absence of two or more of the above characteristics in an intervention result in unsuccessful interventions. Unlike our logic model, which predicted engagement strategies (i.e. intensity, frequency, technique, recruitment, incentives) to be essential to intervention success, we found that “support” seems to be central in maximising benefits of interventions targeting women.

Group-based intervention delivery is present across all four truth tables and eight pathways leading to successful intervention implementation, suggesting that group-based intervention delivery is an essential component of interventions targeting women. Despite this, we cannot conclude that group-based intervention delivery is a necessary condition, as there may be other pathways not captured in this QCA. The importance of group-based intervention delivery may be due to the group setting providing women with a sense of confidence through peer support and engagement. In group-based interventions, women may feel more confident when learning with others and peer support may motivate women. Furthermore, all group-based interventions in our included studies are conducted at health facilities, which may provide women with more confidence that information is aligned with clinical recommendations. Evidence on benefits of group-based interventions involving women who are pregnant has been demonstrated previously [ 72 , 73 ]. Women reported that group-based interventions reduce their feelings of isolation, provide access to group support, and allow opportunities for them to share their experiences [ 72 , 74 , 75 , 76 ]. This is aligned with social support theory, in which social support through a group or social environment may provide women with feelings of reassurance, compassion, reduce feelings of uncertainty, increase sense of control, access to new contacts to solve problems, and provision of instrumental support, which eventually influence positive health behaviours [ 72 , 77 ]. Women may resolve their uncertainties around mode of birth by sharing their concerns with others and learning at the same time how others cope with it. These findings are consistent with the benefits associated with group-based antenatal care, which is recommended by WHO [ 78 , 79 ].

Kingdon et al. (2018) reported that women and communities liked learning new birth information, as it opens new ways of thinking about vaginal birth and CS, and educates about benefits of different modes of birth, including risks of CS. Our QCA is aligned with this finding where provision of information about birth through education delivery leads to successful interventions but with certain caveats. That is, provision of birth information should be accompanied by IEC materials and through group-based intervention delivery. There is not enough information to distinguish what type of IEC materials lead to successful intervention; however, it is important to note that the format of the IEC materials (such as paper-based or mobile application) may affect success. More work is needed to understand how women and families react to format of IEC materials; for example, will paper-based IEC materials be relegated over more modern methods of reaching women with information through digital applications? The QUALI-DEC (Quality decision-making (QUALI-DEC) by women and healthcare providers for appropriate use of caesarean section) study is currently implementing a decision-analysis tool to help women make an informed decision on preferred mode of birth using both a paper-based and mobile application that may shed some light on this [ 80 ].

Previous research has shown that women who participated in interventions aiming to reduce CS desired emotional support (from partners, doulas or health providers) alongside the communication about childbirth [ 22 ]. Our QCA is aligned with this finding in which emotional support from partners or family members is highly influential in leading to successful interventions. Partner involvement in maternity care has been extensively studied and has been demonstrated to improve maternal health care utilisation and outcomes [ 81 ]. Both women and their partners perceived that partner involvement is crucial as it facilitates men to learn directly from providers, thus promoting shared decision-making among women and partners and enabling partners to reinforce adherence to any beneficial suggestions [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 ]. Partners provide psychosocial support to women, for example through being present during pregnancy and the childbirth process, as well as instrumental support, which includes supporting women financially [ 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Despite the benefits of partner involvement, partner's participation in maternity care is still low [ 82 ], as reflected in this study where only four out of 11 included interventions on this study involved partner or family member involvement. Reasons for this low participation, which include unequal gender norms and limited health system capability [ 82 , 84 , 85 , 86 ], should be explored and addressed to ensure the benefits of the interventions.

Furthermore, our QCA demonstrates the importance of interaction with health providers to trigger successful interventions. The interaction of women with providers in CS decision-making, however, is on a “nexus of power, trust, and risk”, where it may be beneficial but can also reinforce the structural oppression of women [ 13 ]. A recent study on patient-provider interaction in CS decision-making concluded that the interaction between providers who are risk-averse, and women who are cautious about their pregnancies in the health system results in discouragement of vaginal births [ 87 ]. However, this decision could be averted by meaningful communication between women and providers where CS risks and benefits are communicated in an environment where vaginal birth is encouraged [ 87 ]. Furthermore, the reasons women desire interaction with providers can come from opposite directions. Some women see providers as the most trusted and knowledgeable source, in which women can trust the judgement and ensure that the information learned is reliable and evidenced-based [ 22 ]. On the other hand, some women may have scepticism towards providers where women understand that providers’ preference may negatively influence their preferred mode of birth [ 22 ]. Therefore, adequate, two-way interaction is important for women to build a good rapport with providers.

It is also important to note that we have limited evidence (3/17 intervention studies) involving women with previous CS. Vaginal birth after previous CS (VBAC) can be a safe and positive experience for some women, but there are also potential risks depending on their obstetric history [ 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Davis (2020) found that women were motivated to have VBAC due to negative experiences of CS, such as the difficult recovery, and that health providers' roles served as pivotal drivers in motivating women towards VBAC [ 91 ]. Other than this, VBAC also requires giving birth in a suitably staffed and equipped maternity unit, with staff trained on VBAC, equipment for labour monitoring, and resources for emergency CS if needed [ 89 , 90 ]. There is comparatively less research conducted on VBAC and trial of labour after CS [ 88 ]. Therefore, more work is needed to explore if there are potentially different pathways that lead to successful intervention implementation for women with previous CS. It may be more likely that interventions targeting various stakeholders are more crucial in this group of women. For example, both education for women and partners or families, as well as training to upskill health providers might be needed to support VBAC.

Strength and limitations

We found many included studies had poor reporting of the interventions, including the general intervention components (e.g. presence of policies that may support interventions) and process evaluation components, which is reflective of the historical approach to reporting trial data. This poor reporting means we could not engage further in the interventions and thus may have missed important conditions that were not reported. However, we have attempted to compensate for limited process evaluation components by identifying all relevant sibling studies that could contribute to a better understanding of context. Furthermore, there are no studies conducted in low-income countries, despite rapidly increasing CS rates in these settings. Lastly, we were not able to conduct more nuanced analyses about CS, such as exploring how CS interventions impacted changes to emergency versus elective CS, VBAC, or instrumental birth, due to an insufficient number of studies and heterogeneity in outcome measurements. Therefore, it is important to note that we are not necessarily measuring the optimal outcome of interest—reducing unnecessary CS. However, it is unlikely that these non-clinical interventions will interfere with a decision of CS based on clinical indications.

Despite these limitations, this is the first study aiming to understand how certain interventions can be successful in targeting women to optimise CS use. We used the QCA approach and new analytical frameworks to re-analyse existing systematic review evidence to generate new knowledge. We ensure robustness through the use of a logic model and worked backwards in understanding what aspects are different in the intervention across different outcomes. The use of QCA and qualitative evidence synthesis ensured that the results are theory-driven, incorporate participants’ perspectives into the analysis, and explored iteratively to find the appropriate configurations, reducing the risk of data fishing. Lastly, this QCA extends the understanding of effectiveness review conducted by Chen et al. (2018) [ 18 ] by explaining the potential intervention components which may influence heterogeneity.

Implications for practice and research

To aid researchers and health providers to reduce CS in their contexts and designing educational interventions targeting women during pregnancy, we have developed a checklist of key components or questions to consider when designing the interventions that may help lead to successful implementation:

Is the intervention delivered in a group setting?

Are IEC materials on what to expect during labour and birth disseminated to women?

Are women’s partners or families involved in the intervention?

Do women have opportunities to interact with health providers?

We have used this checklist to explore the extent to which the included interventions in our QCA include these components using a matrix model (Fig. 6 ).

Matrix model assessing the extent to which the included intervention studies have essential intervention components identified in the QCA

Additionally, future research on interventions to optimise the use of CS should report the intervention components implemented, including process outcomes such as fidelity, attrition, contextual factors (e.g. policies, details of how the intervention is delivered), and stakeholder factors (e.g. women’s perceptions and satisfaction). These factors are important in not just evaluating whether the intervention is successful or not, but also in exploring why similar interventions can work in one but not in another context. There is also a need for more intervention studies implementing VBAC to reduce CS, to understand how involving women with previous CS may result in successful interventions. Furthermore, more studies understanding impact of the interventions targeting women in LMICs are needed.

This QCA illustrates crucial intervention components and potential pathways that can trigger successful educational interventions to optimise CS, focusing on pregnant women. The following intervention components are found to be sufficient in triggering successful outcomes: 1) group-based delivery, 2) provision of IEC materials, 3) partner or family member involvement, and 4) opportunity for women to interact with health providers. These intervention components do not work in siloed or independently but instead work jointly as parts of configurations to enable successful interventions. Researchers, trialists, hospitals, or other institutions and stakeholders planning interventions focusing on pregnant women can consider including these components to ensure benefits. More studies understanding impact of the interventions targeting women to optimise CS are needed from LMICs. Researchers should clearly describe and report intervention components in trials, and consider how process evaluations can help explain why trials were successful or not. More robust trial reporting and process evaluations can help to better understand mechanisms of action and why interventions may work in one context yet not another.

Availability of data and materials

Additional information files have been provided and more data may be provided upon request to [email protected].

Abbreviations

Coverage score

Caesarean section

Crisp set qualitative comparative analysis

Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis

Information, education, and communication

Inclusion score

Low- and middle-income countries

Proportional reduction in inconsistency

Quality decision-making by women and healthcare providers for appropriate use of caesarean section

Vaginal birth after previous caesarean section

World Health Organization

World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-RHR-15.02 . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Zahroh RI, Disney G, Betrán AP, Bohren MA. Trends and sociodemographic inequalities in the use of caesarean section in Indonesia, 1987–2017. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5:e003844. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003844 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6:e005671. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671 .

Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. The Lancet. 2018;392:1341–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7 .

Article Google Scholar

Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392:1349–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Abenhaim HA, Tulandi T, Wilchesky M, Platt R, Spence AR, Czuzoj-Shulman N, et al. Effect of Cesarean Delivery on Long-term Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:354–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002440 .

Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, et al. Impact of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1943–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det130 .

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Hesselman S, Högberg U, Råssjö E-B, Schytt E, Löfgren M, Jonsson M. Abdominal adhesions in gynaecologic surgery after caesarean section: a longitudinal population-based register study. BJOG: An Int J Obstetrics Gynaecology. 2018;125:597–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14708 .

Article CAS Google Scholar

Tita ATN, Landon MB, Spong CY, Lai Y, Leveno KJ, Varner MW, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:111–20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0803267 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wilmink FA, Hukkelhoven CWPM, Lunshof S, Mol BWJ, van der Post JAM, Papatsonis DNM. Neonatal outcome following elective cesarean section beyond 37 weeks of gestation: a 7-year retrospective analysis of a national registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(250):e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.052 .

Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018;15:e1002494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494 .

Ye J, Betrán AP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth. 2014;41:237–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12104 .

Eide KT, Morken N-H, Bærøe K. Maternal reasons for requesting planned cesarean section in Norway: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2250-6 .

Long Q, Kingdon C, Yang F, Renecle MD, Jahanfar S, Bohren MA, et al. Prevalence of and reasons for women’s, family members’, and health professionals’ preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS Med. 2018;15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672 .

McAra-Couper J, Jones M, Smythe L. Caesarean-section, my body, my choice: The construction of ‘informed choice’ in relation to intervention in childbirth. Fem Psychol. 2012;22:81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353511424369 .

Panda S, Begley C, Daly D. Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. PLoS One 2018;13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200941 .

Takegata M, Smith C, Nguyen HAT, Thi HH, Thi Minh TN, Day LT, et al. Reasons for increased Caesarean section rate in Vietnam: a qualitative study among Vietnamese mothers and health care professionals. Healthcare. 2020;8:41. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010041 .

Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3 .

Catling-Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CSE. Non-clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67:1662–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05662.x .

Kingdon C, Downe S, Betran AP. Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: Systematic review of qualitative studies. PLOS ONE. 2018;13:e0203274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203274 .

Kingdon C, Downe S, Betran AP. Interventions targeted at health professionals to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: a qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e025073. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025073 .

Kingdon C, Downe S, Betran AP. Women’s and communities’ views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health. 2018;15:130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0570-z .

Opiyo N, Young C, Requejo JH, Erdman J, Bales S, Betrán AP. Reducing unnecessary caesarean sections: scoping review of financial and regulatory interventions. Reprod Health. 2020;17:133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-00983-y .

Harris K, Kneale D, Lasserson TJ, McDonald VM, Grigg J, Thomas J. School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011651.pub2 .

World Health Organization. Robson Classifcation: Implementation Manual. 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241513197 . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Zahroh RI, Kneale D, Sutcliffe K, Vazquez Corona M, Opiyo N, Homer CSE, et al. Interventions targeting healthcare providers to optimise use of caesarean section: a qualitative comparative analysis to identify important intervention features. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:1526. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08783-9 .

World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections. 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550338 . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Hanckel B, Petticrew M, Thomas J, Green J. The use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to address causality in complex systems: a systematic review of research on public health interventions. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:877. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10926-2 .

Melendez-Torres GJ, Sutcliffe K, Burchett HED, Rees R, Richardson M, Thomas J. Weight management programmes: Re-analysis of a systematic review to identify pathways to effectiveness. Health Expect. 2018;21:574–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12667 .

Chatterley C, Javernick-Will A, Linden KG, Alam K, Bottinelli L, Venkatesh M. A qualitative comparative analysis of well-managed school sanitation in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-6 .

Thomas J, O’Mara-Eves A, Brunton G. Using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in systematic reviews of complex interventions: a worked example. Syst Rev. 2014;3:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-67 .

Dușa A. QCA with R: A Comprehensive Resource. 2021. Available from: https://bookdown.org/dusadrian/QCAbook/ . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Kneale D, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Critical Appraisal of Reviews Using Qualitative Comparative Analyses (CARU-QCA): a tool to critically appraise systematic reviews that use qualitative comparative analysis. In: Abstracts of the 26th Cochrane Colloquium, Santiago, Chile. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020;(1 Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201901 .

Sutcliffe K, Thomas J, Stokes G, Hinds K, Bangpan M. Intervention Component Analysis (ICA): a pragmatic approach for identifying the critical features of complex interventions. Syst Rev. 2015;4:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0126-z .

Melendez-Torres GJ, Sutcliffe K, Burchett HED, Rees R, Thomas J. Developing and testing intervention theory by incorporating a views synthesis into a qualitative comparative analysis of intervention effectiveness. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10:389–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1341 .

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 .

Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R, Tokola M, Halmesmäki E, Saisto T. Obstetric outcome after intervention for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women – randomised trial. BJOG: An Int J Obstetrics Gynaecology. 2013;120:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12011 .

Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin JM. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program Childbirth alternatives Post-Cesarean study group. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:419–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70509-x .

Masoumi SZ, Kazemi F, Oshvandi K, Jalali M, Esmaeili-Vardanjani A, Rafiei H. Effect of training preparation for childbirth on fear of normal vaginal delivery and choosing the type of delivery among pregnant women in Hamadan, Iran: a randomized controlled trial. J Family Reprod Health. 2016;10:115–21.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Navaee M, Abedian Z. Effect of role play education on primiparous women’s fear of natural delivery and their decision on the mode of delivery. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2015;20:40–6.

Fenwick J, Toohill J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Buist A, Turkstra E, et al. Effects of a midwife psycho-education intervention to reduce childbirth fear on women’s birth outcomes and postpartum psychological wellbeing. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:284. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0721-y .

Saisto T, Salmela-Aro K, Nurmi J-E, Könönen T, Halmesmäki E. A randomized controlled trial of intervention in fear of childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:820–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01552-6 .

Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts I, Patel RR, et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous Caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ: British Medic J. 2007;334:1305–9.

Xia X, Zhou Z, Shen S, Lu J, Zhang L, Huang P, et al. Effect of a two-stage intervention package on the cesarean section rate in Guangzhou, China: A before-and-after study. PLOS Medicine. 2019;16:e1002846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002846 .

Yu Y, Zhang X, Sun C, Zhou H, Zhang Q, Chen C. Reducing the rate of cesarean delivery on maternal request through institutional and policy interventions in Wenzhou. China PLoS ONE. 2017;12:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186304 .

Borem P, de Cássia SR, Torres J, Delgado P, Petenate AJ, Peres D, et al. A quality improvement initiative to increase the frequency of Vaginal delivery in Brazilian hospitals. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:415–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003619 .

Ma R, Lao Terence T, Sun Y, Xiao H, Tian Y, Li B, et al. Practice audits to reduce caesareans in a tertiary referral hospital in south-western China. Bulletin World Health Organiz. 2012;90:488–94. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.093369 .

Clarke M, Devane D, Gross MM, Morano S, Lundgren I, Sinclair M, et al. OptiBIRTH: a cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-2829-y .

Zhang L, Zhang L, Li M, Xi J, Zhang X, Meng Z, et al. A cluster-randomized field trial to reduce cesarean section rates with a multifaceted intervention in Shanghai. China BMC Medicine. 2020;18:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-1491-6 .

Fenwick J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Buist A, Turkstra E, Sneddon A, et al. Study protocol for reducing childbirth fear: a midwife-led psycho-education intervention. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:190. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-190 .

Toohill J, Fenwick J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Buist A, Turkstra E, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing childbirth fear in pregnant women. Birth. 2014;41:384–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12136 .

Toohill J, Callander E, Gamble J, Creedy D, Fenwick J. A cost effectiveness analysis of midwife psycho-education for fearful pregnant women – a health system perspective for the antenatal period. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:217. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1404-7 .

Turkstra E, Mihala G, Scuffham PA, Creedy DK, Gamble J, Toohill J, et al. An economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial on psycho-education counselling intervention offered by midwives to address women’s fear of childbirth in Australia. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2017;11:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2016.08.003 .

Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ, DiAMOND study group. Women’s experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG 2006;113:1438–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01112.x .

Emmett CL, Murphy DJ, Patel RR, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts IW, et al. Decision-making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids. Health Expect. 2007;10:161–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00429.x .

Hollinghurst S, Emmett C, Peters TJ, Watson H, Fahey T, Murphy DJ, et al. Economic evaluation of the DiAMOND randomized trial: cost and outcomes of 2 decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous cesarean section. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:453–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09353195 .

Frost J, Shaw A, Montgomery A, Murphy D. Women’s views on the use of decision aids for decision making about the method of delivery following a previous caesarean section: Qualitative interview study. BJOG : An Int J Obstetrics Gynaecology. 2009;116:896–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02120.x .

Rees KM, Shaw ARG, Bennert K, Emmett CL, Montgomery AA. Healthcare professionals’ views on two computer-based decision aids for women choosing mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: a qualitative study. BJOG. 2009;116:906–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02121.x .

Emmett CL, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Preferences for mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: what do women want, what do they get and how do they value outcomes? Health Expect. 2011;14:397–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00635.x .

Bastani F, Hidarnia A, Montgomery KS, Aguilar-Vafaei ME, Kazemnejad A. Does relaxation education in anxious primigravid Iranian women influence adverse pregnancy outcomes?: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2006;20:138–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005237-200604000-00007 .

Feinberg ME, Kan ML. Establishing Family Foundations: Intervention Effects on Coparenting, Parent/Infant Well-Being, and Parent-Child Relations. J Fam Psychol. 2008;22:253–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.253 .

Me F, Ml K, Mc G. Enhancing coparenting, parenting, and child self-regulation: effects of family foundations 1 year after birth. Prevention Science: Official J Soc Prevention Res. 2009;10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0130-4 .

Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R, Tokola M, Halmesmäki E, Saisto T. Life satisfaction, general well-being and costs of treatment for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women by psychoeducative group or conventional care attendance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94:527–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12594 .

Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R, Tokola M, Halmesmäki E, Ryding E-L, et al. Group psychoeducation with relaxation for severe fear of childbirth improves maternal adjustment and childbirth experience–a randomised controlled trial. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;36:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2014.980722 .

Healy P, Smith V, Savage G, Clarke M, Devane D, Gross MM, et al. Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section. Trials. 2018;19:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2401-x .

Clarke M, Savage G, Smith V, Daly D, Devane D, Gross MM, et al. Improving the organisation of maternal health service delivery and optimising childbirth by increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section through enhanced women-centred care (OptiBIRTH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10612254). Trials. 2015;16:542. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1061-y .

Lundgren I, Healy P, Carroll M, Begley C, Matterne A, Gross MM, et al. Clinicians’ views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:350. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1144-0 .

Sharifirad G, Rezaeian M, Soltani R, Javaheri S, Mazaheri MA. A survey on the effects of husbands’ education of pregnant women on knowledge, attitude, and reducing elective cesarean section. J Educ Health Promotion. 2013;2:50. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.119036 .

Valiani M, Haghighatdana Z, Ehsanpour S. Comparison of childbirth training workshop effects on knowledge, attitude, and delivery method between mothers and couples groups referring to Isfahan health centers in Iran. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2014;19:653–8.

Bastani F, Hidarnia A, Kazemnejad A, Vafaei M, Kashanian M. A randomized controlled trial of the effects of applied relaxation training on reducing anxiety and perceived stress in pregnant women. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2005;50:e36-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2004.11.008 .

Feinberg ME, Roettger ME, Jones DE, Paul IM, Kan ML. Effects of a psychosocial couple-based prevention program on adverse birth outcomes. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19:102–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-014-1500-5 .

Evans K, Spiby H, Morrell CJ. Developing a complex intervention to support pregnant women with mild to moderate anxiety: application of the medical research council framework. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:777. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03469-8 .

Rising SS. Centering pregnancy. An interdisciplinary model of empowerment. J Nurse Midwifery. 1998;43:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0091-2182(97)00117-1 .

Breustedt S, Puckering C. A qualitative evaluation of women’s experiences of the Mellow Bumps antenatal intervention. British J Midwife. 2013;21:187–94. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2013.21.3.187 .

Evans K, Spiby H, Morrell JC. Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety in pregnant women a systematic review and narrative synthesis of women’s views on the acceptability of and satisfaction with interventions. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2020;23:11–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-018-0936-9 .

Hoddinott P, Chalmers M, Pill R. One-to-one or group-based peer support for breastfeeding? Women’s perceptions of a breastfeeding peer coaching intervention. Birth. 2006;33:139–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0730-7659.2006.00092.x .

Heaney CA, Israel BA. Social networks and social support. In Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. Jossey-Bass; 2008. pp. 189–210. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-17146-009 .

World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549912 . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

World Health Organization. WHO recommendation on group antenatal care. WHO - RHL. 2021. Available from: https://srhr.org/rhl/article/who-recommendation-on-group-antenatal-care . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Dumont A, Betrán AP, Kabore C, de Loenzien M, Lumbiganon P, Bohren MA, et al. Implementation and evaluation of nonclinical interventions for appropriate use of cesarean section in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a multisite hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial. Implementation Science 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-35564/v2 .

Tokhi M, Comrie-Thomson L, Davis J, Portela A, Chersich M, Luchters S. Involving men to improve maternal and newborn health: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. PLOS ONE. 2018;13:e0191620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191620 .

Gibore NS, Bali TAL. Community perspectives: An exploration of potential barriers to men’s involvement in maternity care in a central Tanzanian community. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0232939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232939 .

Galle A, Plaieser G, Steenstraeten TV, Griffin S, Osman NB, Roelens K, et al. Systematic review of the concept ‘male involvement in maternal health’ by natural language processing and descriptive analysis. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6:e004909. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004909 .

Ladur AN, van Teijlingen E, Hundley V. Male involvement in promotion of safe motherhood in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Midwifery. 2021;103:103089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2021.103089 .

Comrie-Thomson L, Tokhi M, Ampt F, Portela A, Chersich M, Khanna R, et al. Challenging gender inequity through male involvement in maternal and newborn health: critical assessment of an emerging evidence base. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17:177–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1053412 .

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Comrie-Thomson L, Gopal P, Eddy K, Baguiya A, Gerlach N, Sauvé C, et al. How do women, men, and health providers perceive interventions to influence men’s engagement in maternal and newborn health? A qualitative evidence synthesis. Soc Scie Medic. 2021;291:114475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114475 .

Doraiswamy S, Billah SM, Karim F, Siraj MS, Buckingham A, Kingdon C. Physician–patient communication in decision-making about Caesarean sections in eight district hospitals in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study. Reprod Health. 2021;18:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01098-8 .

Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise J-M, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3 .

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth:Green-top Guideline No. 45. 2015. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_45.pdf . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean section. 2019. Available from: https://ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Birth-after-previous-Caesarean-Section-(C-Obs-38)Review-March-2019.pdf?ext=.pdf . Cited 20 Sept 2023.

Davis D, Homer CS, Clack D, Turkmani S, Foureur M. Choosing vaginal birth after caesarean section: Motivating factors. Midwifery. 2020;88:102766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2020.102766 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our thanks to Jim Berryman (Brownless Medical Library, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne) for his help in refining the search strategy for sibling studies.

This research was made possible with the support of UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a co-sponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). RIZ is supported by Melbourne Research Scholarship and Human Rights Scholarship from The University of Melbourne. CSEH is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Principal Research Fellowship. MAB’s time is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200100264) and a Dame Kate Campbell Fellowship (University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The contents of this publication are the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Rana Islamiah Zahroh, Martha Vazquez Corona & Meghan A. Bohren

EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK

Katy Sutcliffe & Dylan Kneale

Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Ana Pilar Betrán & Newton Opiyo

Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Programme, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Caroline S. E. Homer

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

- Conceptualisation and study design: MAB, APB, RIZ

- Funding acquisition: MAB, APB

- Data curation: RIZ, MAB, MVC

- Investigation, methodology and formal analysis: all authors

- Visualisation: RIZ, MAB

- Writing – original draft preparation: RIZ, MAB

- Writing – review and editing: all authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rana Islamiah Zahroh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study utilised published and openly available data, and thus ethics approval is not required.

Consent for publication

No direct individual contact is involved in this study, therefore consent for publication is not needed.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Logic model in optimizing CS use.

Additional file 2.

Risk of bias assessments.

Additional file 3.

Coding framework and calibration rules.

Additional file 4.

Coding framework as applied to each intervention (data table).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zahroh, R.I., Sutcliffe, K., Kneale, D. et al. Educational interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise the use of caesarean section: What are the essential elements? A qualitative comparative analysis. BMC Public Health 23 , 1851 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16718-0

Download citation

Received : 07 March 2022

Accepted : 07 September 2023

Published : 23 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16718-0

Share this article

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

Maternal health
Complex intervention
Intervention implementation

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

Search Cornell

Class Roster

Section menu.

Toggle Navigation
Summer 2024
Spring 2024
Winter 2024
Archived Rosters

Last Updated

Schedule of Classes - April 9, 2024 7:33PM EDT
Course Catalog - April 9, 2024 7:07PM EDT

ECON 3171 Causal Reasoning and Policy Evaluation I

Course description.

Course information provided by the Courses of Study 2023-2024 . Courses of Study 2024-2025 is scheduled to publish mid-June.

This course covers methods used by social scientists to identify causal relationships in data, with a focus on evaluating the effects of real-world policies. Many social science analyses--including in the economics fields of public, labor, health, and development-aim to answer these types of policy-related causal questions: What is the effect of having health insurance on someone's health? Does the death penalty reduce crime? Will lowering class sizes increase students' academic achievement? The goal of this course is to train you to become both a high-quality consumer and producer of this type of research. You will learn about several research designs and data analysis methods for identifying causal relationships in data, read and assess empirical papers that apply these methods, and apply these methods to datasets yourself.

When Offered Fall.

Prerequisites/Corequisites Prerequisite: PUBPOL 3100 or equivalent.

Distribution Category (SBA-AS, SDS-AS, SSC-AS)

Assess the strengths and limitations of different research designs for estimating causal effects.
Read and assess the strengths and weaknesses of empirical research answering causal questions.
Apply the research designs covered in the course to data-based examples.

View Enrollment Information

Regular Academic Session. Combined with: PUBPOL 4101

Credits and Grading Basis

3 Credits Stdnt Opt (Letter or S/U grades)

Class Number & Section Details

5809 ECON 3171 LEC 001

Meeting Pattern

TR 2:55pm - 4:10pm To Be Assigned
Aug 26 - Dec 9, 2024

Instructors

Kapustin, M

To be determined. There are currently no textbooks/materials listed, or no textbooks/materials required, for this section. Additional information may be found on the syllabus provided by your professor.

For the most current information about textbooks, including the timing and options for purchase, see the Cornell Store .

Additional Information

Instruction Mode: In Person

Or send this URL:

Available Syllabi

About the class roster.

The schedule of classes is maintained by the Office of the University Registrar . Current and future academic terms are updated daily . Additional detail on Cornell University's diverse academic programs and resources can be found in the Courses of Study . Visit The Cornell Store for textbook information .

Please contact [email protected] with questions or feedback.

If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact [email protected] for assistance.

IMAGES

How to write Method Section of Research Paper in 03 easy steps
apa methods section example purdue owl
Methodology Sample In Research : The Importance of the Methods Section
How to write a methods section of a research paper
How to Write a Methods Section for a Research Paper Step-by-step Guide
How To Write The Methodology Part Of A Research Paper ~ Alice Writing

VIDEO

What to avoid in writing the methodology section of your research
H.3.7 Multiplying Polynomials
Writing the Methods Section Qualitative
Research Article writing Workshop Part 2: Writing Introduction and Abstract
How to write a Research Paper
Key elements in the research methods

COMMENTS

How to Write an APA Methods Section
Research papers in the social and natural sciences often follow APA style. This article focuses on reporting quantitative research methods. In your APA methods section, you should report enough information to understand and replicate your study, including detailed information on the sample, measures, and procedures used.
How to Write a Methods Section of an APA Paper
To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded ...
PDF How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper
The methods section should describe what was done to answer the research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental design, and explain how the results were analyzed. Scientific writing is direct and orderly. Therefore, the methods section structure should: describe the materials used in the study, explain how the materials ...
How to write the Methods section of a research paper
4. Use subheadings: Dividing the Methods section in terms of the experiments helps the reader to follow the section better. You may write the specific objective of each experiment as a subheading. Alternatively, if applicable, the name of each experiment can also be used as subheading. 5.
How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper
The methods section is a fundamental section of any paper since it typically discusses the 'what', 'how', 'which', and 'why' of the study, which is necessary to arrive at the final conclusions. In a research article, the introduction, which serves to set the foundation for comprehending the background and results is usually ...
How to Write Your Methods
The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher's website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in ...
Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper
The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study's overall validity and reliability.
How to Write a Methods Section for a Research Paper
Since the main point of interest here are your patient-centered outcome variables, you would center your results section on these as well and choose your headers accordingly (e.g., Patient characteristics, Baseline evaluation, Outcome variable 1, Outcome variable 2, Drop-out rate). If, instead, you did a series of visual experiments investigating the perception of faces including a pilot ...
How to Write the Methods Section of an APA Paper
In this first subsection, you will need to identify the participants of your experiment or study. You should include: How many people took part, and how many were assigned to the experimental condition. How they were selected for participation. Any relevant demographic information (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity) You'll also need to address ...
PDF Method Sections for Empirical Research Papers
An annotated Method section and other empirical research paper resources are available here. What is the purpose of the Method section in an empirical research paper? The Method section (also sometimes called Methods, Materials and Methods, or Research Design and Methods) describes the data collection and analysis procedures for a research project.
APA Methods Section ~ How To Write It With Examples
The main heading of the APA methods section should be written in bold and should be capitalized. It also has to be centered. All subheadings should be aligned to the left and must be boldfaced. You should select subheadings that are suitable for your essay, and the most commonly used include 'Participants', 'Materials', and 'Procedure'.
How To Write Methods Section of A Research Paper
The methods section of a research paper serves as the blueprint for conducting and replicating a study. It is a detailed section that outlines how the research was executed, providing readers with a clear understanding of the procedures followed. Importance of Methods Section in Research Paper.
How to write the methods section of a research paper
Writing* / standards. The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study's validity is judged. Therefore, it requires a clear and precise description of how an experiment was done, and the rationale for why specific experimental procedures were chosen. The methods section should describe wh ….
How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper
The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study's validity is judged. Therefore, it requires a clear and precise description of how an experiment was done, and the rationale for why specific experimental procedures were chosen. The methods section should describe what was done to answer the research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental ...
How to Write the Methods Section of a Scientific Article
The Methods section of a research article includes an explanation of the procedures used to conduct the experiment. For authors of scientific research papers, the objective is to present their findings clearly and concisely and to provide enough information so that the experiment can be duplicated. Research articles contain very specific ...
How To Write The Methods Section of a Research
The methods section of a research paper provides a detailed description of the procedures, techniques, and methods employed to conduct the study (American Psychological Association, 2020). It outlines the steps taken to collect, analyze, and interpret data, allowing other researchers to replicate the study and assess the validity of the results.
How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article?
The figures should be indicated within parentheses in their first mention in the "Materials and Methods" section. Headings and as a prevalent convention legends of the figures should be indicated at the end of the manuscript. If a different method is used in the study, this should be explained in detail.
PDF Writing a Method Section
What is a Method Section? It is the part of the proposal or research paper that describes the methods used to collect the data. It follows the introduction. It allows the reader to understand how the data were collected, and to judge for herself if she thinks the methods were good. It should be detailed enough for a good researcher to be able ...
Creating a Robust Methods Section in a Research Paper
The methods section of the research paper details the hows and whys of your analysis, and the results section lets you see your work's impact. Whether it's a finding that supports your hypothesis or an unexpected result that leads to more questions, reporting the results of your analysis is the most fun part of the research process.
Research Paper
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Manuscript
The methods section of a manuscript is one of the most important parts of a research paper because it provides information on the validity of the study and credibility of the results. Inadequate description of the methods has been reported as one of the main reasons for manuscript rejection. The methods section must include sufficient detail so that others could repeat the study and reproduce ...
Educational interventions targeting pregnant women to optimise the use
Background Caesarean section (CS) rates are increasing globally, posing risks to women and babies. To reduce CS, educational interventions targeting pregnant women have been implemented globally, however, their effectiveness is varied. To optimise benefits of these interventions, it is important to understand which intervention components influence success. In this study, we aimed to identify ...
Class Roster
The goal of this course is to train you to become both a high-quality consumer and producer of this type of research. You will learn about several research designs and data analysis methods for identifying causal relationships in data, read and assess empirical papers that apply these methods, and apply these methods to datasets yourself.

Generate accurate APA citations for free

How to Write an APA Methods Section | With Examples

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Example of an APA methods section

Scribbr Citation Checker New

Participant or subject characteristics

Sampling procedures

Sample size and power

Primary and secondary measures

Quality of measurements

Data collection methods and research design

Data diagnostics

Analytic strategies

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

What to Include in a Method Section

Components of a Method Section

Participants

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

A Word From Verywell

Frequently Asked Questions

How to write the Methods section of a research paper

Related Reading

The correct way to report p values

How to choose the research methodology best suited for your study

Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through…

Trending Searches

Recent Searches

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

What is the methods section of a research paper ?

Why is the methods section important?

Structure of methods section of a research paper

How to write the methods section of a research paper

What to include in the methods section of a research paper

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

Related Posts

Top 10 High Impact Factor Journals

Essay Writing Basics: Strategies for PhD Success

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

Why Methods Matter

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

What to include in your methods section

A constant principle of rigorous science

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Ethical Considerations

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

Summary Writing tips

Don’t

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

Structure and Writing Style

Writing Tip

Another Writing Tip

Yet Another Writing Tip

How to Write a Methods Section for a Research Paper

Not just a list of experiments and methods

More Journal Guidelines to Consider

General Methods Section Structure: What Is Your Story?

What Methods Should You Report (and Leave Out)?

Details Commonly Missing from the Methods Section

Sample size and power estimation

Ethical guidelines and approval

Structure & word limitations

Standardized checklists

Accurate and Appropriate Language in the Methods Section

How to Write the Methods Section of an APA Paper

Structuring the Methods Section

Writing the Participants Subsection

Writing the Materials Subsection

Find this useful?

Writing the Procedure Subsection

Proofreading Your Methods Section

Share this article:

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service