method section in research

• 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
• 2024 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."

• 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: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

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

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

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

Why Methods Matter

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

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

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

What to include in your methods section

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

A constant principle of rigorous science

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

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

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

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

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

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

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

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

Ethical Considerations

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

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Writing tips

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

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

Don’t

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

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

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

It should include:

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

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

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

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

Option 2: Start with your “why”

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

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

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

Quantitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mixed methods

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

Specific methods might include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

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

2. Cite relevant sources

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

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

3. Write for your audience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• 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.

How to Start a Methods Section in Research? [with Examples]

The examples below are from 76,350 full-text PubMed research papers that I analyzed in order to explore common ways to start the Materials and Methods section.

Research papers included in this analysis were selected at random from those uploaded to PubMed Central between the years 2016 and 2021. I used the BioC API to download the data (see the References section below).

Examples of how to start writing the Methods section

The Methods section is the recipe for the study: it should provide the reader enough information to replicate the study without looking elsewhere. [for more information, see: How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide ]

The Methods section can:

1. Start by mentioning the approvals acquired to conduct the study

For example:

“ The study protocol was approved by the institutional research commissions of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH; Basel, Switzerland) and the Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques en Côte d’Ivoire (CSRS; Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire). Ethical approval was granted by the ethics committee of Basel (EKBB; reference no. 316/08), and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Côte d’Ivoire (reference no. 124/MESRS/DGRSIT/YKS/sac).” Source: taken from the Methods section of this PubMed article

2. Start by mentioning the study design

“This cross-sectional study was performed among students and staff of one of the largest government-funded universities in Malaysia.” Source: taken from the Methods section of this PubMed article

3. Start by mentioning the date, duration, and place of the study

“This cross-sectional study was a part of the Student Mental Health Survey that was conducted at Akita University between May 20 and June 16, 2020 .” Source: taken from the Methods section of this PubMed article

4. Start by mentioning the source of the data

“ This study used three datasets from the 2007, 2013–14, and 2018 Zambian Demographic Health Surveys (DHS).” Source: taken from the Methods section of this PubMed article

5. Start by mentioning the sample size

“Data were acquired on 30 patients with schizophrenia and 30 healthy controls .” Source: taken from the Methods section of this PubMed article

6. Start by justifying the use of the main material or method

“ In order to describe the infectious disease progression we use the minimal and prototypical SIR model.” Source: taken from the Methods section of this PubMed article

Common words used to start a Methods section

Here’s a list of the most common words used at the beginning of the Methods section:

• “This study was approved by…”
• “This study was conducted at…”
• “This was a retrospective study…”
• “This cross-sectional study was conducted…”
• “This study was conducted in accordance…”
• “This study was performed in accordance…”
• “All procedures were approved by the…”
• “Written informed consent was obtained from…”
• Comeau DC, Wei CH, Islamaj Doğan R, and Lu Z. PMC text mining subset in BioC: about 3 million full text articles and growing,  Bioinformatics , btz070, 2019.

Further reading

• How Long Should the Methods Section Be? Data from 61,514 Examples
• How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide
• Does the Number of Authors Matter? Data from 101,580 Research Papers

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.

Privacy Policy Imprint

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…

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:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

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

Structure of Research Methodology

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Research Design

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

III. Data Collection Methods

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

IV. Data Analysis Methods

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

V. Ethical Considerations

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

VI. Limitations

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

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

Qualitative Research Methodology

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

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

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

Case Study Research Methodology

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

Action Research Methodology

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

Experimental Research Methodology

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

Survey Research Methodology

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

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

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

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

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

Introduction:

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

Research Design:

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

Participants:

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

Intervention :

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

Data Collection:

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

Data Analysis:

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

Ethical Considerations:

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

Data Management:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

How to Write Research Methodology

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

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

When to Write Research Methodology

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

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

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

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

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

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Research Methodology

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

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

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Advanced Search

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

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

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.

• publications
• research methodology
• clinical trials
• laboratory research
• Correspondence: Richard H Kallet MS RRT FAARC, Respiratory Care Services, San Francisco General Hospital, NH:GA-2, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco CA. 94110. E-mail: rkallet{at}sfghsom.ucsf.edu .
• Copyright © 2004 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

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

Related articles, cited by....

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Method section

Your method section provides a detailed overview of how you conducted your research. Because your study methods form a large part of your credibility as a researcher and writer, it is imperative that you be clear about what you did to gather information from participants in your study.

With your methods section, as with the sections above, you want to walk your readers through your study almost as if they were a participant. What happened first? What happened next?

The method section includes the following sub-sections.

I. Participants: Discuss who was enrolled in your experiment. Include major demographics that have an impact on the results of the experiment (i.e. if race is a factor, you should provide a breakdown by race). The accepted term for describing a person who participates in research studies is a participant not a subject.

II. Apparatus and materials: The apparatus is any equipment used during data collection (such as computers or eye-tracking devices). Materials include scripts, surveys, or software used for data collection (not data analysis). It is sometimes necessary to provide specific examples of materials or prompts, depending on the nature of your study.

III. Procedure: The procedure includes the step-by-step how of your experiment. The procedure should include:

• A description of the experimental design and how participants were assigned conditions.
• Identification of your independent variable(s) (IV), dependent variable(s) (DV), and control variables. Give your variables clear, meaningful names so that your readers are not confused.
• Important instructions to participants.
• A step-by-step listing in chronological order of what participants did during the experiment.

Results section

The results section is where you present the results of your research-both narrated for the readers in plain English and accompanied by statistics.

Note : Depending on the requirements or the projected length of your paper, sometimes the results are combined with the discussion section.

Organizing Results

Continue with your story in the results section. How do your results fit with the overall story you are telling? What results are the most compelling? You want to begin your discussion by reminding your readers once again what your hypotheses were and what your overall story is. Then provide each result as it relates to that story. The most important results should go first.

Preliminary discussion: Sometimes it is necessary to provide a preliminary discussion in your results section about your participant groups. In order to convince your readers that your results are meaningful, you must first demonstrate that the conditions of the study were met. For example, if you randomly assigned subjects into groups, are these two groups comparable? You can't discuss the differences in the two groups until you establish that the two groups can be compared.

Provide information on your data analysis: Be sure to describe the analysis you did. If you are using a non-conventional analysis, you also need to provide justification for why you are doing so.

Presenting Results : Bem (2006) recommends the following pattern for presenting findings:

• Remind readers of the conceptual hypotheses or questions you are asking
• Remind readers of behaviors measured or operations performed
• Provide the answer/result in plain English
• Provide the statistic that supports your plain English answer
• Elaborate or qualify the overall conclusion if necessary

Writers new to psychology and writing with statistics often dump numbers at their readers without providing a clear narration of what those numbers mean. Please see our Writing with Statistics handout for more information on how to write with statistics.

Discussion section

Your discussion section is where you talk about what your results mean and where you wrap up the overall story you are telling. This is where you interpret your findings, evaluate your hypotheses or research questions, discuss unexpected results, and tie your findings to the previous literature (discussed first in your literature review). Your discussion section should move from specific to general.

Here are some tips for writing your discussion section.

• Begin by providing an interpretation of your results: what is it that you have learned from your research?
• Discuss each hypotheses or research question in more depth.
• Do not repeat what you have already said in your results—instead, focus on adding new information and broadening the perspective of your results to you reader.
• Discuss how your results compare to previous findings in the literature. If there are differences, discuss why you think these differences exist and what they could mean.
• Briefly consider your study's limitations, but do not dwell on its flaws.
• Consider also what new questions your study raises, what questions your study was not able to answer, and what avenues future research could take in this area.

Example: Here is how this works.

References section

References should be in standard APA format. Please see our APA Formatting guide for specific instructions.

• Skip to content
• Accessibility help

AI breakthrough accelerates carbon capture and storage from 100 days to just 24 hours

Published: 14 May 2024

At Heriot-Watt University, we are pioneering ground-breaking artificial intelligence techniques that could revolutionise carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and collectively propel us toward a net-zero future.

Our new multimillion-pound ECO-AI research project, led by our net-zero focused global research institute iNetZ+, has achieved a remarkable feat - slashing the time required for modelling CCS methods from 100 days down to just 24 hours using advanced AI simulators.

This unprecedented acceleration opens up new possibilities for making CCS a viable economic option, enabling traditional industries like steel, cement, and chemicals to decarbonise efficiently.

The ECO-AI approach

Funded by £2.5 million from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the ECO-AI project, in partnership with colleagues from Imperial College London, brings together an interdisciplinary team of experts from chemical engineering, physics, geology, mathematics, computer science, and economics.

Their mission? To develop energy-efficient solvents for CO2 capture and facilitate the permanent storage of captured CO2 in deep geological formations through cutting-edge AI techniques.

By harnessing the power of AI, our researchers can replace standard techniques for modelling complex processes. Tasks that would typically require more than three months of intense supercomputer simulations can now be achieved in just a day.

This game-changing capability not only accelerates research progress but also drastically reduces the associated time and costs, making CCS more accessible and scalable.

Collaborative Innovation

To strengthen our research efforts, we recently hosted a two-day workshop and three-day hackathon event, bringing together leading experts in AI, computational science, and CCS.

The workshop highlighted the vital role of interdisciplinary collaboration and explored the use of digital twins for decision-making around net-zero emissions, as well as the incorporation of simplified models into large-scale optimisation replicas for complex systems.

The hackathon provided a hands-on opportunity for teams to develop AI-based solutions for challenges related to CO2 capture, storage, and policy/economics. With access to tools, data, and expert support, participants tackled tasks like discovering new materials, modelling subsurface fluid flow, and analysing patterns in CCS patents.

The enthusiasm and ingenuity displayed during these events were truly inspiring, as students and postdocs coded and worked on developing AI models that could reshape how we approach CCS technologies.

A profound impact

As Professor Ahmed H. Elsheikh, leader of the data and artificial intelligence research theme at iNetZ+, said: "Our efforts for the ECO-AI research are primarily focused on refining algorithms that can potentially be applied to CCS in the future in typically hard-to-decarbonise industries.

“Our research has the ability to really advance existing scientific research streams to source suitable options for safe storage of CO2 without consuming too much energy and without the need to deploy expensive and often time-consuming exploratory investigations."

Professor Clare McCabe, co-leader of the project's carbon capture component, echoes this sentiment, saying: "The optimism and energy in the hackathon, where students and postdocs coded for several days working on various AI models related to the ECO-AI project, was truly impressive."

Professor Gill Murray, Deputy Principal for Enterprise and Business at Heriot-Watt University, emphasised: "Using our new global research institute iNetZ+ as a vehicle to impact global solutions towards decarbonisation, we're pioneering ground-breaking methods in all major sectors that can propel us toward a net-zero future."

She highlighted the importance of integrating research-informed teaching to "shape the next generation of leaders and engineers," fostering "a dynamic environment where we can cultivate a culture of innovation and excellence."

The ECO-AI project exemplifies the university’s commitment to innovate for the future and beyond, harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to address the global climate crisis and accelerate the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral world.

For more information about the ECO-AI project, please visit https://ai4netzero.github.io/eco-ai/  

More information on iNetz+ can be found https://www.hw.ac.uk/uk/research/inetzplus.htm

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Risk Factors
• Providing Care
• Living with Diabetes
• Clinical Guidance
• DSMES for Health Care Providers
• Prevent Type 2 Diabetes: Talking to Your Patients About Lifestyle Change
• Employers and Insurers
• Community-based Organizations (CBOs)
• Toolkits for Diabetes Educators and Community Health Workers
• National Diabetes Statistics Report
• Reports and Publications
• Current Research Projects
• National Diabetes Prevention Program
• State, Local, and National Partner Diabetes Programs for Public Health
• Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Toolkit

Appendix B: Detailed Methods and Data Sources

What to know.

This section provides additional information about data sources and methods used in the National Diabetes Statistics Report.

Prevalence of diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among people of all ages, United States, 2021

Data Sources

• 2017–March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• 2019–2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Single Year of Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2021, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

The total number of people with diabetes is the sum of the number of those aged 18 years or older with diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes and the number of those younger than age 18 years with diagnosed diabetes. Undiagnosed diabetes for children and adolescents younger than age 18 years was not assessed because of insufficient sample size for reliable estimates. The 2017–March 2020 NHANES was used to calculate the percentage of adults aged 18 years or older with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes (see next section for detail). The 2019–2021 NHIS was used to calculate the percentage of children and adolescents younger than 18 years with diagnosed diabetes. These percentages were then applied to the corresponding July 1, 2021, U.S. resident population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau to derive the total number of people with diabetes.

NHANES data collected from 2019 to March 2020 were combined with data from the 2017–2018 cycle to form a nationally representative sample of NHANES 2017–March 2020 pre-pandemic data. NCHS stopped all NHANES data collection for the 2019–2020 cycle after March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying 2017–March 2020 NHANES estimates to the 2021 U.S. resident population estimates has limitations. This methodology assumes that the prevalence of diabetes in 2021 was the same as it was in earlier years (2017–2018) and that the prevalence of diabetes in the resident population was identical to those in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population (from NHANES). Deviations from these assumptions may result in overestimated or underestimated numbers and rates.

Prevalence of diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among adults aged 18 years or older, United States, 2017–2020 and 2021

The percentage of adults aged 18 years or older with diabetes (diagnosed or undiagnosed) was estimated using 2017–March 2020 NHANES data. People who self-reported being told by a doctor or health professional that they had diabetes (other than during pregnancy) were classified as having diagnosed diabetes. Those not reporting a history of diagnosed diabetes but who had either a fasting plasma glucose greater than or equal to 126 mg/dl or an A1C level greater than or equal to 6.5% were classified as having undiagnosed diabetes. For consistency with earlier estimates, fasting glucose values were adjusted using backward regression equations provided by NCHS. People with missing values for either fasting glucose or A1C and pregnant women were excluded. People with diagnosed diabetes from the interviewed sample were combined with people with undiagnosed diabetes from the fasting plasma glucose subsample. Appropriate sampling weights were used so that estimates were representative of the total U.S. adult population.

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2005–2006 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2005-2006/GLU_D.htm .

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2007–2008 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2007-2008/GLU_E.htm

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2017–March 2020 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2017-2018/P_GLU.htm

Trends in prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and total diabetes among adults aged 18 years or older, United States, 2001–2020

Data Source

• 2001–March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Percentages of diagnosed, undiagnosed, and total diabetes using overlapping 4-year survey periods during 2001–March 2020 were calculated among adults aged 18 years or older and age-adjusted by the direct method to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population, using age groups 18–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older. Joinpoint regression was used to analyze varying trends in non-overlapping 2-year estimates. This analysis used age-adjusted estimates and permutation tests to identify a maximum of three points where linear trends in prevalence changed significantly in either direction or magnitude.

National Cancer Institute. Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint/

Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, United States, 2017–2020 and 2021

• 2017–March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The percentage of people with diagnosed diabetes was obtained from 2019–2021 NHIS data and 2017–March 2020 NHANES data. The percentage of people aged <20 years with diagnosed diabetes was obtained from NHIS based on information reported by a knowledgeable adult family member residing in the household. The percentage of people aged 20 years or older with diagnosed diabetes was obtained from self-reported data in the 2017–March 2020 NHANES. The combined estimate of diagnosed diabetes for all ages was applied to the July 1, 2021, U.S. resident population from the U.S. Census Bureau to derive the number of people with diagnosed diabetes for all ages and for children and adolescents younger than age 20 years.

Validated methods to distinguish between types of diabetes in surveys are not available. The percentage of adults aged 20 years or older with diagnosed diabetes who self-reported type 1 diabetes plus current insulin use and the percentage of adults aged 20 years or older with diagnosed diabetes who started using insulin within a year of their diagnosis were estimated from 2021 NHIS data. To estimate the number of adults aged 20 years or older with type 1 diabetes, these percentages were then applied to the derived number of adults aged 20 years or older with diagnosed diabetes. To estimate the number of young people with type 1 diabetes, the percentage of children and adolescents younger than age 20 years with type 1 diabetes (86.3%) calculated using prevalence data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study was applied to the derived number of children and adolescents younger than age 20 years with diagnosed diabetes.

Lawrence JM, Divers J, Ison S; SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Group. Trends in prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents in the U.S., 2001-2017. JAMA. 2021;326(8):717-727.

Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes by race and ethnicity, education level, income level, and metropolitan residence among adults aged 18 years or older, United States, 2019–2021

• 2019–2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• National Data Warehouse (NDW), Indian Health Service (IHS).

With the exception of American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) people, who are not well represented in national surveys because of small population size, diagnosed diabetes was calculated overall and by race and ethnicity, education level, income level, and sex using 2019–2021 NHIS self-reported data. Three years of data were averaged to provide more statistically reliable estimates. Adults aged 18 years or older who self-reported being told by a doctor or health professional that they had diabetes were classified as having diagnosed diabetes.

Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among AI/AN people was calculated using fiscal year 2021 data from the IHS NDW. This data system includes patient registration and encounter data that are received from IHS facilities, tribally operated programs, and urban and contract health systems. These health care facilities serve about 2.6 million AI/AN people who belong to 574 federally recognized tribes in 37 states. Data for active patients (i.e., those with at least one encounter during the preceding 3 years) aged 18 years or older were used to calculate these estimates. Diabetes cases among these patients were identified based on encounter data using International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes starting with 250 and ICD-10-CM (Tenth Revision) diagnosis codes starting with E10, E11, or E13. Patients were considered to have diagnosed diabetes if they had at least two encounters with one of these diagnosis codes reported during fiscal year 2021. Comparison of diabetes prevalence estimates calculated from NHIS and IHS NDW data should be interpreted with caution because of differences in the data sources and methods used to define diabetes. Additionally, there was a notable decrease in diabetes prevalence estimates for AI/AN people beginning in fiscal year 2020, which can be attributed to disruptions in clinical care related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Education level was classified into three categories: less than high school, high school graduate, or more than high school. Metropolitan residence was based on the six-level urban-rural classification scheme for U.S. counties and county-equivalent entities developed by NCHS. Metropolitan areas included "large central metro," "large fringe metro," "medium metro," and "small metro" counties. Nonmetropolitan areas included "micropolitan" and "noncore" counties. Income level was based on the ratio of family income to the federal poverty level and classified into four categories: <100% federal poverty level (below poverty level), 100%–299% federal poverty level, 300%–499% federal poverty level, and ≥500% federal poverty level. To handle missing income data in NHIS, NCHS provides files of multiply imputed income values. Five imputation datasets were used to calculate prevalence estimates by income level.

Percentages for all subgroups were age-adjusted, using age groups 18−44, 45−64, and 65 years or older, by the direct method to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population.

National Center for Health Statistics. Multiple Imputation of Family Income and Personal Earnings in the National Health Interview Survey: Methods and Examples . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019. Accessed March 29, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/tecdoc18.pdf

Ingram DD, Franco SJ. 2013 NCHS urban–rural classification scheme for counties. Vital Health Stat . 2014;2(166). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_166.pdf

Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 18 years or older by detailed race and ethnicity, United States, 2019–2021

Beginning with the 2019 NHIS, data used to identify survey respondents in Hispanic and Asian subgroups were no longer publicly available. Estimates of diagnosed diabetes prevalence by detailed race and ethnicity were provided by NCHS's Interactive Summary Health Statistics for Adults, by Detailed Race and Ethnicity, using 2019–2021 NHIS self-reported data. Adults aged 18 years or older who self-reported being told by a doctor or health professional that they had diabetes were classified as having diagnosed diabetes. Three years of data were averaged to provide more statistically reliable estimates. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.

National Center for Health Statistics. Technical Notes for Interactive Summary Health Statistics for Adults, by Detailed Race and Ethnicity . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed March 29, 2024. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/NHISDataQueryTool/SHS_ADULT3YR/SHS_3YR_Tech_Notes.pdf

Parker JD, Talih M, Malec DJ, et al. National Center for Health Statistics data presentation standards for proportions. Vital Health Stat ; 2017;2(175). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf

County-level prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 20 years or older, United States, 2004 and 2021

• 2003–2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2021, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.
• United States Diabetes Surveillance System (USDSS), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Year-specific, county-level estimates and maps of prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes are available from the USDSS website . Data from the BRFSS and the U.S. Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program were used to estimate county-level prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 20 years or older. Three years of data were used to improve the precision of the year-specific incidence estimates. For example, 2004 estimates used BRFSS survey data for 2003, 2004, and 2005. Two years of data were used for 2021 estimates, as 2022 data were not available at the time of analysis. County-level estimates for over 3,100 counties or county equivalents (e.g., parish, borough, municipality) in the 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia were based on indirect model-dependent estimates using Bayesian multilevel modeling techniques.

This model-dependent approach uses a statistical model that "borrows strength" in making an estimate for one county from BRFSS data collected in other counties. For incidence, multilevel binomial regression models with random effects of demographic variables (age groups 20–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older; race and ethnicity; and sex) at the county level were developed. County-level prevalence was based on design-assisted model-based estimates using the power prior log-weights (PLOW) technique developed by Xie et al. Estimates were age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population using age groups 20–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older.

Rao JNK. Small Area Estimation . John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003.

Xie H, Barker LE, Rolka DB. Incorporating design weights and historical data into model-based small-area estimation. J Data Sci . 2020;18(1):115–131.

Barker LE, Thompson TJ, Kirtland KA, et al. Bayesian small area estimates of diabetes incidence by United States county, 2009. J Data Sci . 2013;11:249–269.

Incidence of diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 18 years or older, United States, 2021

The rate of new cases of diabetes was calculated using 2021 NHIS data on respondents' age at diagnosis and age at interview. Three-year averages of 2019–2021 NHIS were used to improve the precision of estimates by race and ethnicity, and education level. Adults who reported being diagnosed with diabetes were asked at what age they were diagnosed. The number of years since diagnosis was calculated by subtracting the person's age at diagnosis from the person's current age. Adults who had a value of zero were identified as having been diagnosed with diabetes within the last year. In addition, half of the adults who had a value of one were classified as having been diagnosed within the last year. To calculate the rate, the numerator included the number of adults who were diagnosed with diabetes within the last year. The denominator was the estimate of the adult population, excluding those who had been diagnosed for more than 1 year and those who were categorized on the NHIS as "refused" or "don't know" or who had missing values on the diabetes status question.

To estimate the number of new cases of diabetes for adults in 2021, the age-, sex-, race/ethnicity-specific rates of new cases from three-way cross-tabulations of 2019–2021 NHIS data were applied to the corresponding July 1, 2021, U.S. resident population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau— after excluding the number of adults who had been diagnosed with diabetes for more than 1 year, estimated from NHANES. These subgroup-specific numbers of adults were summed to obtain the estimated number of adults with newly diagnosed diabetes for the following groups: total population; age groups 18–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older; men and women; non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic adults; metropolitan and nonmetropolitan residence. Age-adjusted incidence of diagnosed diabetes was calculated among adults aged 18 years or older by sex, race and ethnicity, education level, and metropolitan residence by the direct method to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population, using age groups 18–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older.

Trends in age-adjusted incidence of diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 18 years or older, United States, 2000–2021

• 2000–2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The same method used to calculate 2021 incidence was also applied to 2000–2021 NHIS data. For every year from 2000 to 2021, age-adjusted incidence of diagnosed diabetes was calculated among adults aged 18 years or older by the direct method to the 2000 US Census standard population, using age groups 18–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older. Joinpoint regression was used to analyze varying trends in annual age-adjusted incidence estimates. This analysis used the age-adjusted estimates and permutation tests to identify a maximum of three points where linear trends in incidence changed significantly in either direction or magnitude.

Incidence of diagnosed diabetes among children and adolescents younger than age 20 years, United States, 2002–2018

• 2002–2018 SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, SEARCH Study Group.

We reported data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, a population-based registry of incident diabetes among children and adolescents younger than age 20 years from five clinical sites in the United States. Diabetes type was based on physician diagnosis. Estimates of incidence for type 1 diabetes were included for all patients younger than 20 years. Estimates for incidence of type 2 diabetes were included only for children and adolescents age 10 to 19 years since there are too few cases among patients younger than age 10 years for reliable estimates. Patients with all other types of diabetes were excluded.

Race and ethnicity were based on self-report, from medical records, or from geocoding for young people with missing data. Annual denominators included civilian children and adolescents who were younger than age 20 years on December 31 of the index year and who were civilian residents of the geographic study areas. These numbers were summed across the five clinical sites. Annual incidence rates, by type, were calculated as the number of valid, registered patients divided by the number of people in the surveillance networks over the same period across the five sites. Rates for each index year were presented as 2-year moving averages and were expressed per 100,000 youths, overall, and according to race and ethnicity for 2003 (2002–2003) through 2018 (2017–2018).

The 95% confidence intervals for the annual unadjusted rates were calculated with the use of the skew-corrected inverted-score test, assuming a binomial distribution. To estimate the number of young people in the United States with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, the incidence rates from the SEARCH study were applied to the total U.S. population for the four racial and ethnic groups for the years of interest. Data for American Indian (AI) youths who participated in the SEARCH study were not shown, since rates cannot be generalized to all AI youths in the United States. Trends in incidence were modeled separately for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with the number of diagnosed cases in each year as the outcome, the corresponding denominator as an offset, and the incidence year as the main predictor. The models were assumed to have a negative binomial distribution with a logarithmic link. Trends were tested using a generalized autoregressive moving average to account for serial correlation.

Hamman RF, Bell RA, Dabelea D, et al.; SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Group. The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study: rationale, findings, and future directions. Diabetes Care . 2014;37(12):3336–3344.

Wagenknecht LE, Lawrence JM, Isom S, et al. Trends in incidence of youth-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the USA, 2002-18: results from the population-based SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol . 2023;11(4):242–250. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(23)00025-6

Benjamin MA, Rigby RA, Stasinopoulos DM. Generalized autoregressive moving average models. J Am Stat Assoc . 2003;98(461):214–223.

Prevalence of prediabetes among people aged 18 years or older, United States, 2017–2020 and 2021

• Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2021, Population Division, US Census Bureau.

The percentage of adults aged 18 years or older with prediabetes was estimated using 2017–March 2020 NHANES data. People without diabetes were classified as having prediabetes if they had fasting plasma glucose values of 100 to 125 mg/dL or A1C values of 5.7% to 6.4%. In addition to this definition, prediabetes estimates according to other definitions were calculated, using 2-hour fasting glucose from an oral glucose tolerance test or more stringent glycemic criteria.

For consistency with earlier estimates, fasting glucose values were adjusted using backward regression equations provided by NCHS. People with missing values for either fasting glucose or A1C and pregnant women were excluded. To estimate the number of adults with prediabetes, the age-, sex-, race/ethnicity specific percentages from three-way cross-tabulations were applied to the corresponding July 1, 2021, U.S. resident population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. These subgroup-specific numbers of adults were summed to obtain the estimated number of adults with prediabetes for the following: total population; age groups 18–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older; men and women; non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic adults.

Among those who tested positive for prediabetes, awareness was defined as (1) answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you have any of the following: prediabetes, impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, borderline diabetes or that your blood sugar is higher than normal but not high enough to be called diabetes or sugar diabetes?" or (2) reported having prediabetes or borderline diabetes when asked whether they had diabetes.

Age-adjusted prevalence of prediabetes was calculated among adults aged 18 years or older by sex, race and ethnicity, and education level by the direct method to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population, using age groups 18–44, 45–64, and 65 years or older. Joinpoint regression was used to analyze varying trends in annual age-adjusted prevalence estimates. This analysis used the age-adjusted estimates and permutation tests to identify a maximum of three points where linear trends in prediabetes prevalence changed significantly in either direction or magnitude.

American Diabetes Association. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care . 2023;46(suppl 1):S19–S40.

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2015–2016 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2015-2016/GLU_I.htm .

National Cancer Institute. Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint/ .

Risk factors for diabetes-related complications

• 2015–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The percentages of adults aged 18 years or older with diagnosed diabetes who had selected risk factors were estimated using the following definitions:

Current cigarette smoking status was based on self-report. Tobacco use was based on self-reported current cigarette smoking or serum cotinine level >10 ng/mL. Former cigarette smoker was based on both 1) no current tobacco use and 2) a history of smoking at least 100 cigarettes in a lifetime.

Overweight and Obesity

Overweight and obesity were classified according to body mass index of 25.0–29.9 kg/m2 (overweight), 30.0–39.9 kg/m2 (obesity), or 40.0 kg/m2 or higher (extreme obesity) calculated from measured values of height and weight.

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity was based on self-report of less than 10 minutes per week of moderate or vigorous activity in each of the physical activity categories of work, leisure time, and transportation.

High Blood Pressure

High blood pressure was based on average measured systolic blood pressure of 130 mmHg or higher or the average diastolic blood pressure of 80 mmHg or higher or self-reported current use of prescription medication for high blood pressure.

High Cholesterol

High cholesterol was calculated as measured total cholesterol level minus HDL cholesterol level. A non-HDL cholesterol value of 130 mg/dL is roughly equivalent to an LDL level of 100 mg/dL, which indicates an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and eligibility for statin therapy.

A1C was classified based on measured glycated hemoglobin, with values higher than 9% indicating poor glycemic control.

Preventing diabetes-related complications

• 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The percentages of adults aged 18 years or older with diagnosed diabetes who had selected protective factors were estimated from NHANES unless otherwise specified using the following definitions:

Physical Activity

Meeting the recommended physical activity goal was based on having at least 150 minutes per week of leisure-time physical activity.

Weight Management

Self-report of managing or losing weight to lower risk for developing certain diseases.

Statin Treatment

Statin therapy among adults aged 40–75 years with diagnosed diabetes was based on prescription information from a medication inventory.

A1C, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCs)

The ABCs definition was based on meeting all of the following criteria: A1C value <7.0%, blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, non-HDL cholesterol <130 mg/dL, and being a nonsmoker. A less stringent ABCs definition was based on meeting all of the following criteria: A1C value <8.0%, blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, non-HDL cholesterol <160 mg/dL, and being a nonsmoker.

Receipt of a blood test for A1C, a blood pressure examination, or a blood test for cholesterol or receipt of all three recommended ABC tests by a health professional in the past year was based on self-reported data from NHIS.

Vaccinations

Receipt of an influenza vaccination in the past year and receipt of a COVID-19 (including number of COVID-19 vaccinations), hepatitis B, or pneumococcal vaccination ever was based on self-reported data from NHIS.

American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(suppl 1).

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Endocr Pract . 2017;23(suppl 2).

Coexisting conditions and complications among adults aged 18 years or older with diabetes

• 2019–2020 National Inpatient Sample (NIS), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
• 2019–2020 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
• 2020 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) Annual Report.
• 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The number of emergency department (ED) visits for hypoglycemia (blood glucose <70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemic crisis in 2019 and 2020 were calculated using NEDS. Hyperglycemic crisis includes diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS). DKA is characterized by hyperglycemia (blood glucose >250 mg/dL), metabolic acidosis, and increased blood ketone concentration. HHS is characterized by severe hyperglycemia (blood glucose >600 mg/dL), hyperosmolarity, and dehydration, without ketoacidosis.

Discharge disposition was classified as the proportion of patients who visited the ED and: were treated and released; were admitted to a hospital; transferred to another hospital; transferred to a skilled nursing facility, an intermediate care facility, or home with home health care; left against medical advice; died; or had unknown disposition but were not admitted to a hospital. The number of hospitalizations for major cardiovascular diseases, lower-extremity amputation, hyperglycemic crisis and hypoglycemia in 2019 and 2020 were calculated using NIS. Crude rates were calculated using the proportion of the population with diabetes from NHIS.

Prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1–4 among US adults aged 18 years or older with diagnosed diabetes was calculated using laboratory data from the 2017–March 2020 NHANES and the 2009 and 2021 CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The 2009 CKD-EPI eGFR equation was based on serum creatinine, age, sex, and Black race. The updated 2021 equation was based on serum creatinine, age, and sex only. People with missing values for serum creatinine and pregnant women were excluded.

CKD awareness was based on self-report among adults with eGFR levels 15 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (i.e., moderate to severe CKD stages 3–4). Data on the numbers of people with end-stage kidney disease by primary cause (diabetes, high blood pressure, and glomerulonephritis) were obtained from the USRDS Annual Report Reference Tables.

Prevalence of vision disability, defined as severe vision difficulty or blindness, was calculated using self-reported data from the 2021 BRFSS.

National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis . 2002;39(2 suppl 1):S1–266.

Inker LA, Eneanya ND, Coresh J, et al.; Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration. New creatinine– and cystatin C-based equations to estimate GFR without race. N Engl J Med . 2021;385(19)1737–1749. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2102953

Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med . 2009;150(9):604–612.

Johansen KL, Chertow GM, Foley RN, et al. US Renal Data System 2020 annual data report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis . 2021;77(4 Suppl 1):Svii–Sviii, S1–S597.

Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects how your body turns food into energy. About 1 in 10 Americans has diabetes.

For Everyone

Health care providers, public health.

A Simple Technique for Removing Microplastics from Drinking Water Revealed by Research

A s microplastic fragments increasingly infiltrate our systems, largely through consumption of contaminated food and drink, scientists are seeking effective solutions to combat this issue.

Researchers from China’s Guangzhou Medical University and Jinan University have discovered a straightforward method to extract these tiny plastic pieces from water.

The team experimented with both softened water and mineral-rich hard tap water , introducing nanoplastics and microplastics (NMPs) to the samples, following which they boiled and subsequently filtered the mixture to remove the remaining solids.

In some experiments, this boiling and filtering process successfully eliminated up to 90 percent of the NMPs, depending on the nature of the water being treated. This technique is especially convenient since it can be carried out using common kitchen equipment.

The research team states, “This uncomplicated boiling strategy can ‘decontaminate’ NMPs from household tap water, potentially reducing human consumption of NMPs from drinking water,” in their published work .

Hard water, well-known for its tendency to develop limescale, or calcium carbonate , upon heating, showed greater NMP removal. The kettle’s familiar white deposits capture the microplastics as the calcium carbonate separates from the water during boiling.

The method proved effective even with softened water, which contains less calcium carbonate—approximately one-quarter of the NMPs were caught in this case. Trapped within a calcium carbonate layer, these plastic particles were then filtered out using a simple tool, such as a thin stainless steel mesh typical for tea-straining, according to the researchers.

Previous research has detected traces of various plastics like polystyrene and polyethylene in drinking water, leading to routine ingestion. To test their solution further, the researchers introduced an excess of nanoplastics, which subsequently saw a reduced presence.

As stated by the researchers, “Drinking boiled water appears to be a feasible long-term solution for diminishing worldwide NMP exposure,” despite the fact that this practice is not common globally and is mostly traditional in a few regions. [source]

The study aims to encourage the habit of water boiling prior to consumption, especially with microplastic contamination on the rise globally.

While the exact health implications of microplastic ingestion remain to be fully understood, there is increasing concern regarding its contribution to disturbance of gut microbiota and antibiotic resistance in humans.

The authors of this study express a need for further exploration into the role of boiled water in preventing the introduction of synthetic materials into our systems and mitigating the alarming impacts of microplastics.

“Our outcomes affirm a highly practical approach to minimize human NMP exposure and contribute to the groundwork for conducting broader investigations involving a much larger sample collection,” the team shares .

The research was detailed in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters .

FAQ Section:

Q: What are microplastics?

A: Microplastics are small plastic fragments typically less than five millimeters in size, resulting from the breakdown of larger plastic debris or from manufactured products such as microbeads in personal care items.

Q: How do microplastics end up in drinking water?

A: Microplastics enter water systems through various sources, including industrial runoff, waste water discharge, and the breakdown of larger plastics in the environment. They have been found in both tap and bottled water.

Q: Is boiling water an effective way to remove microplastics?

A: Yes, according to the study by researchers from Guangzhou Medical University and Jinan University, boiling water and then filtering it can remove a significant portion of microplastics from drinking water.

Q: Are there health risks associated with consuming microplastics?

A: The health effects of consuming microplastics are not yet fully understood, but there is concern that they can lead to changes in the gut microbiome and increased antibiotic resistance.

Q: How can the average person remove microplastics from their drinking water at home?

A: Based on the study, individuals can boil their tap water and use a household filter, such as one made of stainless steel mesh typically used for straining tea, to remove any trapped microplastics.

Conclusion:

Microplastic contamination in drinking water is a growing concern with potential health implications. However, the study from Guangzhou Medical University and Jinan University offers a practical solution for individuals looking to reduce their exposure to microplastics. By boiling and filtering their water, people can take an active step toward limiting their intake of these synthetic particles. As research continues, there is a collective hope for broader acceptance of this water purification practice and a deeper understanding of the impacts of microplastics on human health.

Evaluating Local Government Policy Innovations

A case study of surabaya's efforts in combating stunting and enhancing public health services quality.

• Deasy Arieffiani Universitas Hang Tuah
• Mas Roro Lilik Ekowanti Public Administration Department, Hang Tuah University, Surabaya, Indonesia

This research aims to evaluate regional innovations in implementing Surabaya City government policies to reduce stunting rates and improve the quality of public health services. A qualitative descriptive method was used with a case study approach involving field observations and structured interviews. The research results show the success of Posyandu Prima in reducing stunting rates significantly in the last two years. The Surabaya City Government has proven effective in managing this program's human resources and budget. The active involvement of Great Surabaya Cadres (KSH) and non-governmental organizations also contributed greatly to the program's success. Cross-sector collaboration plays an important role in supporting implementation. Institutional characteristics, such as commitment to public health and ability to collaborate, also matter. Theoretically, this research shows that synergy between the parties involved and government commitment can achieve significant results in handling the stunting problem. In conclusion, the Prima Posyandu Program has proven successful in reducing stunting rates and improving the quality of public health services in Surabaya. Additionally, the collaborative efforts between community stakeholders, healthcare providers, and governmental bodies underscore the crucial role of multi-sectoral partnerships in addressing complex public health issues like stunting. This synergy fosters comprehensive approaches that combine local knowledge, resources, and policy support to effectively combat stunting and enhance the well-being of communities. Thus, the Prima Posyandu Program's success is a compelling example of how concerted action and sustained commitment can yield tangible improvements in population health outcomes.

Adair, L. S., Carba, D. B., Lee, N. R., & Borja, J. B. (2021). Stunting, IQ, and Final School Attainment in the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey Birth Cohort. Economics & Human Biology, 42, 100999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2021.100999

Aditri, F., Sufyan, D. L., & Puspareni, L. D. (2022). Policy Implementation Strategy of West Bandung District Health Office in Stunting Intervention During COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Global Nutrition, 1(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.53823/jgn.v1i2.24

Adnyana, S. (2014). Perbedaan Status Gizi Balita Berdasarkan Frekuensi Kunjungan ke Posyandu dan Tingkat Pengetahuan Ibu di Desa Bungaya Kecamatan Bebandem Kabupaten Karangasem Provinsi Bali. Jurnal Bina Praja, 6(3), 221–226. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.06.2014.221-226

Anggraini, T., & Melin Wula, H. V. (2021). Governmental Performance in Integrated Stunting Countermeasures in Border Regions: Evidence from Timur Tengah Utara Regency. Jurnal Studi Sosial dan Politik, 5(2), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.19109/jssp.v5i2.9561

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Bhutta, Z. A., Akseer, N., Keats, E. C., Vaivada, T., Baker, S., Horton, S. E., Katz, J., Menon, P., Piwoz, E., Shekar, M., Victora, C., & Black, R. (2020). How Countries Can Reduce Child Stunting at Scale: Lessons From Exemplar Countries. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112, 894S-904S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa153

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.

Daniel, D., Qaimamunazzala, H., Prawira, J., Siantoro, A., Sirait, M., Tanaboleng, Y. B., & Padmawati, R. S. (2023). Interactions of Factors Related to the Stunting Reduction Program in Indonesia: A Case Study in Ende District. International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services, 53(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938231156024

Elmighrabi, N. F., Fleming, C. A. K., & Agho, K. E. (2024). Factors Associated with Childhood Stunting in Four North African Countries: Evidence from Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, 2014–2019. Nutrients, 16(4), 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16040473

Erlyn, P., Hidayat, B. A., Fatoni, A., & Saksono, H. (2021). Nutritional Interventions by Local Governments as an Effort to Accelerate Stunting Reduction. Jurnal Bina Praja, 13(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.13.2021.543-553

Essa, W. Y., Nurfindarti, E., & Ruhyana, N. F. (2021). Strategies for Handling Stunting in Bandung City. Jurnal Bina Praja, 13(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.13.2021.15-28

Fatahillah, R. E. P., & Noviyanti. (2023). Analisis Survei Kepuasan Masyarakat pada Pelayanan Kesehatan Ibu dan Anak (KIA) di Puskesmas Gayungan Kota Surabaya. Jurnal Inovasi Administrasi Negara Terapan, 1(1), 178–190. https://journal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/innovant/article/view/25898

Ferguson, L. C., & Clark, T. N. (1979). The Policy Predicament: Making and Implementing Public Policy by George C. Edwards and Ira Sharkansky. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2989886

Habimana, J. de D., Uwase, A., Korukire, N., Jewett, S., Umugwaneza, M., Rugema, L., & Munyanshongore, C. (2023). Prevalence and Correlates of Stunting among Children Aged 6–23 Months from Poor Households in Rwanda. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4068. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054068

Halik, A. (2015). Implementasi Kebijakan Pelimpahan Urusan Pemerintahan Lingkup Kementerian Dalam Negeri. Jurnal Bina Praja, 7(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.07.2015.131-148

Iryani, R. Y., Maulidiah, S., Rahman, K., Prihatin, P. S., & Febrian, R. A. (2022). Capacity of Community Government in Convergence Stunting Prevention in Sinaboi Countries Sinaboika District, Rokan Hilir District. International Journal of Health Sciences, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS4.5595

Jeyakumar, A., Godbharle, S., & Giri, B. R. (2021). Determinants of Anthropometric Failure Among Tribal Children Younger than 5 Years of Age in Palghar, Maharashtra, India. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 42(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120970836

Kwami, C. S., Godfrey, S., Gavilan, H., Lakhanpaul, M., & Parikh, P. (2019). Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: Linkages with Stunting in Rural Ethiopia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20), 3793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203793

Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2009). Qualitative Data Analysis. The NIHR RDS for the East Midlands/Yorkshire & the Humber.

Macella, A. D. R., Mardhiah, N., & Handayani, S. W. (2022). A Study of Leadership Innovation in Stunting Prevention and Handling in Simeulue, Aceh Province, Indonesia. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.56225/ijassh.v1i1.39

Media, Y. (2014). Kualitas Pelayanan Kesehatan Ibu Hamil dan Bersalin di Daerah Terpencil (Studi Kasus di Nagari Batu Bajanjang, Kabupaten Solok, Provinsi Sumatera Barat). Jurnal Bina Praja, 6(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.06.2014.21-30

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE.

Mwita, F. C., PrayGod, G., Sanga, E., Setebe, T., Joseph, G., Kunzi, H., Webster, J., Gladstone, M., Searle, R., Ahmed, M., Hokororo, A., Filteau, S., Friis, H., Briend, A., & Olsen, M. F. (2024). Developmental and Nutritional Changes in Children with Severe Acute Malnutrition Provided with n-3 Fatty Acids Improved Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food and Psychosocial Support: A Pilot Study in Tanzania. Nutrients, 16(5), 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16050692

Nadeak, H. (2014). Implementasi Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 19 Tahun 2008 tentang Kecamatan. Jurnal Bina Praja, 6(3), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.06.2014.183-195

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications.

Pemerintah Kota Surabaya. (2023, February 16). Program Pemkot Surabaya “Posyandu Prima” Dijadikan Percontohan Nasional. Pemerintah Kota Surabaya. https://surabaya.go.id/id/berita/72605/program-pemkot-surabaya-posyandu-prima-dijadikan-percontohan-nasional

Prasetyo, A., Noviana, N., Rosdiana, W., Anwar, M. A., Hartiningsih, Hendrixon, Harwijayanti, B. P., & Fahlevi, M. (2023). Stunting Convergence Management Framework through System Integration Based on Regional Service Governance. Sustainability, 15(3), 1821. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031821

Rahman, S. A., Amran, A., Ahmad, N. H., & Khadijeh Taghizadeh, S. (2019). The Contrasting Role of Government and NGO Support Towards the Entrepreneurs at Base of Pyramid and Effect on Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 31(4), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1498261

Rustikawati, K., Setyowati, D., & Herawati, N. (2019). Sistem Informasi Geografis Status Gizi Buruk Balita di Dinas Kesehatan Kota Yogyakarta Berbasis Mobile Android. Jurnal Teknologi, 12(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.3415/JURTEK.V12I2.2703

Sekretariat Percepatan Pencegahan Stunting. (2019). Strategi Nasional Percepatan Pencegahan Anak Kerdil (Stunting). Sekretariat Percepatan Pencegahan Stunting.

Setyawan, D., Priantono, A., & Firdausi, F. (2021). George Edward III Model. Publicio: Jurnal Ilmiah Politik, Kebijakan dan Sosial, 3(2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.51747/publicio.v3i2.774

Sirait, F. E. T. (2021). Policy Communication and the Solidity of the Jokowi’s Second Term Coalition in Handling Covid-19. Jurnal Bina Praja, 13(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.13.2021.257-268

Siswati, T., Iskandar, S., Pramestuti, N., Raharjo, J., Rubaya, A. K., & Wiratama, B. S. (2022). Impact of an Integrative Nutrition Package through Home Visit on Maternal and Children Outcome: Finding from Locus Stunting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Nutrients, 14(16), 3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14163448

Suratri, M. A. L., Putro, G., Rachmat, B., Nurhayati, Ristrini, Pracoyo, N. E., Yulianto, A., Suryatma, A., Samsudin, M., & Raharni. (2023). Risk Factors for Stunting among Children under Five Years in the Province of East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), Indonesia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021640

swaranews.com. (2023, January 26). Prevalensi Stunting Surabaya Terendah se-Indonesia. Swaranews.com. https://swaranews.com/baca-4764-prevalensi-stunting-surabaya-terendah-se-indonesia

Tamrin, M. H. (2017). Interaksi Aktor Kebijakan dalam Pengelolaan Wilayah Jembatan Suramadu dalam Perspektif Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). JKMP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Manajemen Publik), 5(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.21070/jkmp.v5i2.1312

Tamrin, M. H., & Lubis, L. (2023). Pengelolaan KEE Ujung Pangkah Melalui Kolaborasi Stakeholders. Literasi Nusantara Abadi Grup.

Tarmizi, S. N. (2023, January 25). Prevalensi Stunting di Indonesia Turun ke 21,6% dari 24,4%. Sehat Negeriku. https://sehatnegeriku.kemkes.go.id/baca/rilis-media/20230125/3142280/prevalensi-stunting-di-indonesia-turun-ke-216-dari-244/

Taufiqurokhman, T. (2023). Equality Strategy for Reducing Stunting Prevalence Rate: Case Study of DKI Jakarta Province. Jurnal Bina Praja, 15(3), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.15.2023.495-506

Titaley, C. R., Ariawan, I., Hapsari, D., Muasyaroh, A., & Dibley, M. J. (2019). Determinants of the Stunting of Children Under Two Years Old in Indonesia: A Multilevel Analysis of the 2013 Indonesia Basic Health Survey. Nutrients, 11(5), 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051106

Umiyati, S., & Tamrin, M. H. (2021). Penta Helix Synergy in Halal Tourism Development. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020–Social, Humanity, and Education (ICoSIHESS 2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210120.108

Utami, T., Kosasih, K., & Sayidin, R. (2023). Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation of Stunting Reduction in Penajam Paser Utara District in 2021. Journal on Education, 5(4), 13218–13227. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v5i4.2322

Utami, W. A., Rikza, A., Anggresta, P., & Nuryananda, P. F. (2022). The Role of Institutional Collaboration Between Actors in Protecting the Economic Security of Indonesian Migrant Workers With Financial Literacy. Jurnal Bina Praja, 14(2), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.14.2022.373-383

Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The Policy Implementation Process. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2023 Author(s)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Make a Submission

Manuscript Template

Accreditation Certificate

Download Certificate

Journal Policies

• Focus and Scope
• Section Policies
• Peer Review Process
• Publication Frequency
• Open Access Statement
• Article Processing Charges
• Plagiarism Check
• References Management
• Author Guidelines
• Copyright Notice and Licensing
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• Crossmark Policy Page

Abstracting & Indexing

See complete lists

Citation Analysis

Collaboration

Domestic Policy Strategy Agency Ministry of Home Affairs

Jalan Kramat Raya Nomor 132 Jakarta Pusat DKI Jakarta - 10430

p-ISSN: 2085-4323 e-ISSN Elektronik: 2503-3360

DOI: 10.21787/jbp

Jurnal Bina Praja has been accredited by the Ministry of Research and Technology/Head of the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia in SINTA 2 based on Decree Number 200/M/KPT/2020