justification of a research study meaning

7 Examples of Justification (of a project or research)

The justification to the part of a research project that sets out the reasons that motivated the research. The justification is the section that explains the importance and the reasons that led the researcher to carry out the work.

The justification explains to the reader why and why the chosen topic was investigated. In general, the reasons that the researcher can give in a justification may be that his work allows to build or refute theories; bring a new approach or perspective on the subject; contribute to the solution of a specific problem (social, economic, environmental, etc.) that affects certain people; generate meaningful and reusable empirical data; clarify the causes and consequences of a specific phenomenon of interest; among other.

Among the criteria used to write a justification, the usefulness of the research for other academics or for other social sectors (public officials, companies, sectors of civil society), the significance in time that it may have, the contribution of new research tools or techniques, updating of existing knowledge, among others. Also, the language should be formal and descriptive.

Examples of justification

• This research will focus on studying the reproduction habits of salmon in the Mediterranean region of Europe, since due to recent ecological changes in the water and temperatures of the region produced by human economic activity , the behavior of these animals has been modified. Thus, the present work would allow to show the changes that the species has developed to adapt to the new circumstances of its ecosystem, and to deepen the theoretical knowledge about accelerated adaptation processes, in addition to offering a comprehensive look at the environmental damage caused by growth. unsustainable economic, helping to raise awareness of the local population.
• We therefore propose to investigate the evolution of the theoretical conceptions of class struggle and economic structure throughout the work of Antonio Gramsci, since we consider that previous analyzes have overlooked the fundamentally dynamic and unstable conception of human society that is present. in the works of Gramsci, and that is of vital importance to fully understand the author’s thought.
• The reasons that led us to investigate the effects of regular use of cell phones on the health of middle-class young people under 18 years of age are centered on the fact that this vulnerable sector of the population is exposed to a greater extent than the rest of society to risks that the continuous use of cell phone devices may imply, due to their cultural and social habits. We intend then to help alert about these dangers, as well as to generate knowledge that helps in the treatment of the effects produced by the abuse in the use of this technology.
• We believe that by means of a detailed analysis of the evolution of financial transactions carried out in the main stock exchanges of the world during the period 2005-2010, as well as the inquiry about how financial and banking agents perceived the situation of the financial system, it will allow us to clarify the economic mechanisms that enable the development of an economic crisis of global dimensions such as the one that the world experienced since 2009, and thus improve the design of regulatory and counter-cyclical public policies that favor the stability of the local and international financial system.
• Our study about the applications and programs developed through the three analyzed programming languages ​​(Java, C ++ and Haskell), can allow us to clearly distinguish the potential that each of these languages ​​(and similar languages) present for solving specific problems. , in a specific area of ​​activity. This would allow not only to increase efficiency in relation to long-term development projects, but to plan coding strategies with better results in projects that are already working, and to improve teaching plans for teaching programming and computer science.
• This in-depth study on the expansion of the Chinese empire under the Xia dynasty, will allow to clarify the socioeconomic, military and political processes that allowed the consolidation of one of the oldest states in history, and also understand the expansion of metallurgical and administrative technologies along the coastal region of the Pacific Ocean. The deep understanding of these phenomena will allow us to clarify this little-known period in Chinese history, which was of vital importance for the social transformations that the peoples of the region went through during the period.
• Research on the efficacy of captropil in the treatment of cardiovascular conditions (in particular hypertension and heart failure) will allow us to determine if angiotensin is of vital importance in the processes of blocking the protein peptidase, or if by the On the contrary, these effects can be attributed to other components present in the formula of drugs frequently prescribed to patients after medical consultation.

Related posts:

• Research Project: Information and examples
• 15 Examples of Empirical Knowledge
• 10 Paragraphs about Social Networks
• 15 Examples of Quotes
• What are the Elements of Knowledge?

Privacy Overview

• 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 the Rationale of the Study in Research (Examples)

What is the Rationale of the Study?

The rationale of the study is the justification for taking on a given study. It explains the reason the study was conducted or should be conducted. This means the study rationale should explain to the reader or examiner why the study is/was necessary. It is also sometimes called the “purpose” or “justification” of a study. While this is not difficult to grasp in itself, you might wonder how the rationale of the study is different from your research question or from the statement of the problem of your study, and how it fits into the rest of your thesis or research paper. 

The rationale of the study links the background of the study to your specific research question and justifies the need for the latter on the basis of the former. In brief, you first provide and discuss existing data on the topic, and then you tell the reader, based on the background evidence you just presented, where you identified gaps or issues and why you think it is important to address those. The problem statement, lastly, is the formulation of the specific research question you choose to investigate, following logically from your rationale, and the approach you are planning to use to do that.

Table of Contents:

How to write a rationale for a research paper , how do you justify the need for a research study.

• Study Rationale Example: Where Does It Go In Your Paper?

The basis for writing a research rationale is preliminary data or a clear description of an observation. If you are doing basic/theoretical research, then a literature review will help you identify gaps in current knowledge. In applied/practical research, you base your rationale on an existing issue with a certain process (e.g., vaccine proof registration) or practice (e.g., patient treatment) that is well documented and needs to be addressed. By presenting the reader with earlier evidence or observations, you can (and have to) convince them that you are not just repeating what other people have already done or said and that your ideas are not coming out of thin air. 

Once you have explained where you are coming from, you should justify the need for doing additional research–this is essentially the rationale of your study. Finally, when you have convinced the reader of the purpose of your work, you can end your introduction section with the statement of the problem of your research that contains clear aims and objectives and also briefly describes (and justifies) your methodological approach. 

When is the Rationale for Research Written?

The author can present the study rationale both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before conducting research : The study rationale is a central component of the research proposal . It represents the plan of your work, constructed before the study is actually executed.
• Once research has been conducted : After the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research article or  PhD dissertation  to explain why you focused on this specific research question. When writing the study rationale for this purpose, the author should link the rationale of the research to the aims and outcomes of the study.

What to Include in the Study Rationale

Although every study rationale is different and discusses different specific elements of a study’s method or approach, there are some elements that should be included to write a good rationale. Make sure to touch on the following:

• A summary of conclusions from your review of the relevant literature
• What is currently unknown (gaps in knowledge)
• Inconclusive or contested results  from previous studies on the same or similar topic
• The necessity to improve or build on previous research, such as to improve methodology or utilize newer techniques and/or technologies

There are different types of limitations that you can use to justify the need for your study. In applied/practical research, the justification for investigating something is always that an existing process/practice has a problem or is not satisfactory. Let’s say, for example, that people in a certain country/city/community commonly complain about hospital care on weekends (not enough staff, not enough attention, no decisions being made), but you looked into it and realized that nobody ever investigated whether these perceived problems are actually based on objective shortages/non-availabilities of care or whether the lower numbers of patients who are treated during weekends are commensurate with the provided services.

In this case, “lack of data” is your justification for digging deeper into the problem. Or, if it is obvious that there is a shortage of staff and provided services on weekends, you could decide to investigate which of the usual procedures are skipped during weekends as a result and what the negative consequences are. 

In basic/theoretical research, lack of knowledge is of course a common and accepted justification for additional research—but make sure that it is not your only motivation. “Nobody has ever done this” is only a convincing reason for a study if you explain to the reader why you think we should know more about this specific phenomenon. If there is earlier research but you think it has limitations, then those can usually be classified into “methodological”, “contextual”, and “conceptual” limitations. To identify such limitations, you can ask specific questions and let those questions guide you when you explain to the reader why your study was necessary:

Methodological limitations

• Did earlier studies try but failed to measure/identify a specific phenomenon?
• Was earlier research based on incorrect conceptualizations of variables?
• Were earlier studies based on questionable operationalizations of key concepts?
• Did earlier studies use questionable or inappropriate research designs?

Contextual limitations

• Have recent changes in the studied problem made previous studies irrelevant?
• Are you studying a new/particular context that previous findings do not apply to?

Conceptual limitations

• Do previous findings only make sense within a specific framework or ideology?

Study Rationale Examples

Let’s look at an example from one of our earlier articles on the statement of the problem to clarify how your rationale fits into your introduction section. This is a very short introduction for a practical research study on the challenges of online learning. Your introduction might be much longer (especially the context/background section), and this example does not contain any sources (which you will have to provide for all claims you make and all earlier studies you cite)—but please pay attention to how the background presentation , rationale, and problem statement blend into each other in a logical way so that the reader can follow and has no reason to question your motivation or the foundation of your research.

Background presentation

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, most educational institutions around the world have transitioned to a fully online study model, at least during peak times of infections and social distancing measures. This transition has not been easy and even two years into the pandemic, problems with online teaching and studying persist (reference needed) . 

While the increasing gap between those with access to technology and equipment and those without access has been determined to be one of the main challenges (reference needed) , others claim that online learning offers more opportunities for many students by breaking down barriers of location and distance (reference needed) .  

Rationale of the study

Since teachers and students cannot wait for circumstances to go back to normal, the measures that schools and universities have implemented during the last two years, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact of those measures on students’ progress, satisfaction, and well-being need to be understood so that improvements can be made and demographics that have been left behind can receive the support they need as soon as possible.

Statement of the problem

To identify what changes in the learning environment were considered the most challenging and how those changes relate to a variety of student outcome measures, we conducted surveys and interviews among teachers and students at ten institutions of higher education in four different major cities, two in the US (New York and Chicago), one in South Korea (Seoul), and one in the UK (London). Responses were analyzed with a focus on different student demographics and how they might have been affected differently by the current situation.

How long is a study rationale?

In a research article bound for journal publication, your rationale should not be longer than a few sentences (no longer than one brief paragraph). A  dissertation or thesis  usually allows for a longer description; depending on the length and nature of your document, this could be up to a couple of paragraphs in length. A completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification than an approach that slightly deviates from well-established methods and approaches.

Consider Using Professional Academic Editing Services

Now that you know how to write the rationale of the study for a research proposal or paper, you should make use of our free AI grammar checker , Wordvice AI, or receive professional academic proofreading services from Wordvice, including research paper editing services and manuscript editing services to polish your submitted research documents.

You can also find many more articles, for example on writing the other parts of your research paper , on choosing a title , or on making sure you understand and adhere to the author instructions before you submit to a journal, on the Wordvice academic resources pages.

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

How to Justify Your Methods in a Thesis or Dissertation

4-minute read

• 1st May 2023

Writing a thesis or dissertation is hard work. You’ve devoted countless hours to your research, and you want your results to be taken seriously. But how does your professor or evaluating committee know that they can trust your results? You convince them by justifying your research methods.

What Does Justifying Your Methods Mean?

In simple terms, your methods are the tools you use to obtain your data, and the justification (which is also called the methodology ) is the analysis of those tools. In your justification, your goal is to demonstrate that your research is both rigorously conducted and replicable so your audience recognizes that your results are legitimate.

The formatting and structure of your justification will depend on your field of study and your institution’s requirements, but below, we’ve provided questions to ask yourself as you outline your justification.

Why Did You Choose Your Method of Gathering Data?

Does your study rely on quantitative data, qualitative data, or both? Certain types of data work better for certain studies. How did you choose to gather that data? Evaluate your approach to collecting data in light of your research question. Did you consider any alternative approaches? If so, why did you decide not to use them? Highlight the pros and cons of various possible methods if necessary. Research results aren’t valid unless the data are valid, so you have to convince your reader that they are.

How Did You Evaluate Your Data?

Collecting your data was only the first part of your study. Once you had them, how did you use them? Do your results involve cross-referencing? If so, how was this accomplished? Which statistical analyses did you run, and why did you choose them? Are they common in your field? How did you make sure your data were statistically significant ? Is your effect size small, medium, or large? Numbers don’t always lend themselves to an obvious outcome. Here, you want to provide a clear link between the Methods and Results sections of your paper.

Did You Use Any Unconventional Approaches in Your Study?

Most fields have standard approaches to the research they use, but these approaches don’t work for every project. Did you use methods that other fields normally use, or did you need to come up with a different way of obtaining your data? Your reader will look at unconventional approaches with a more critical eye. Acknowledge the limitations of your method, but explain why the strengths of the method outweigh those limitations.

Find this useful?

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

What Relevant Sources Can You Cite?

You can strengthen your justification by referencing existing research in your field. Citing these references can demonstrate that you’ve followed established practices for your type of research. Or you can discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating other studies. Highlight the use of established techniques, tools, and measurements in your study. If you used an unconventional approach, justify it by providing evidence of a gap in the existing literature.

Two Final Tips:

●  When you’re writing your justification, write for your audience. Your purpose here is to provide more than a technical list of details and procedures. This section should focus more on the why and less on the how .

●  Consider your methodology as you’re conducting your research. Take thorough notes as you work to make sure you capture all the necessary details correctly. Eliminating any possible confusion or ambiguity will go a long way toward helping your justification.

In Conclusion:

Your goal in writing your justification is to explain not only the decisions you made but also the reasoning behind those decisions. It should be overwhelmingly clear to your audience that your study used the best possible methods to answer your research question. Properly justifying your methods will let your audience know that your research was effective and its results are valid.

Want more writing tips? Check out Proofed’s Writing Tips and Academic Writing Tips blogs. And once you’ve written your thesis or dissertation, consider sending it to us. Our editors will be happy to check your grammar, spelling, and punctuation to make sure your document is the best it can be. Check out our services for free .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

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

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

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

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

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

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

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

What Is Market Research?

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

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

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

How to Get a Patent

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

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

Research proposal, thesis, exegesis, and journal article writing for business, social science and humanities (BSSH) research degree candidates

Topic outline, introduction and research justification.

Introduction and research justification, business, social sciences, humanities

Introduction.

• Signalling the topic in the first sentence
• The research justification or 'problem' statement 
• The 'field' of literature
• Summary of contrasting areas of research
• Summary of the 'gap' in the literature
• Research aims and objectives

Summary of the research design

Example research proposal introductions.

This topic outlines the steps in the introduction of the research proposal. As discussed in the first topic in this series of web resources, there are three key elements or conceptual steps within the main body of the research proposal. In this resource, these elements are referred to as the research justification, the literature review and the research design. These three steps also structure, typically, but not always in this order, the proposal introduction which contains an outline of the proposed research.

These steps pertain to the key questions of reviewers:

• What problem or issue does the research address? (research justification)
• How will the research contribute to existing knowledge? (the 'gap' in the literature, sometimes referred to as the research 'significance')
• How will the research achieve its stated objectives? (the research design)

Reviewers look to find a summary of the case for the research in the introduction, which, in essence, involves providing summary answers to each of the questions above.

The introduction of the research proposal usually includes the following content:

• a research justification or statement of a problem (which also serves to introduce the topic)
• a summary of the key point in the literature review (a summary of what is known and how the research aims to contribute to what is known)
• the research aim or objective
• a summary of the research design
• concise definitions of any contested or specialised terms that will be used throughout the proposal (provided the first time the term is used).

This topic will consider how to write about each of these in turn.

Signaling the topic in the first sentence

The first task of the research proposal is to signal the area of the research or 'topic' so the reader knows what subject will be discussed in the proposal. This step is ideally accomplished in the opening sentence or the opening paragraph of the research proposal. It is also indicated in the title of the research proposal. It is important not to provide tangential information in the opening sentence or title because this may mislead the reader about the core subject of the proposal.

A ‘topic’ includes:

• the context or properties of the subject (the particular aspect or properties of the subject that are of interest).

Questions to consider in helping to clarify the topic:

• What is the focus of my research?
• What do I want to understand?
• What domain/s of activity does it pertain to?
• What will I investigate in order to shed light on my focus?

The research justification or the ‘problem’ statement

The goal of the first step of the research proposal is to get your audience's attention; to show them why your research matters, and to make them want to know more about your research. The first step within the research proposal is sometimes referred to as the research justification or the statement of the 'problem'. This step involves providing the reader with critical background or contextual information that introduces the topic area, and indicates why the research is important. Research proposals often open by outlining a central concern, issue, question or conundrum to which the research relates.

The research justification should be provided in an accessible and direct manner in the introductory section of the research proposal. The number of words required to complete this first conceptual step will vary widely depending on the project.

Writing about the research justification, like writing about the literature and your research design, is a creative process involving careful decision making on your part. The research justification should lead up to the topic of your research and frame your research, and, when you write your thesis, exegesis or journal article conclusion, you will again return to the research justification to wrap up the implications of your research. That is to say, your conclusions will refer back to the problem and reflect on what the findings suggest about how we should treat the problem. For this reason, you may find the need to go back and reframe your research justification as your research and writing progresses.

The most common way of establishing the importance of the research is to refer to a real world problem. Research may aim to produce knowledge that will ultimately be used to:

• advance national and organisational goals (health, clean environment, quality education),
• improve policies and regulations,
• manage risk,
• contribute to economic development,
• promote peace and prosperity,
• promote democracy,
• test assumptions (theoretical, popular, policy) about human behaviour, the economy, society,
• understand human behaviour, the economy and social experience,
• understand or critique social processes and values.

Examples of 'research problems' in opening sentences and paragraphs of research writing

Management The concept of meritocracy is one replicated and sustained in much discourse around organisational recruitment, retention and promotion. Women have a firm belief in the concept of merit, believing that hard work, education and talent will in the end be rewarded (McNamee and Miller, 2004). This belief in workplace meritocracy could in part be due to the advertising efforts of employers themselves, who, since the early 1990s, attempt to attract employees through intensive branding programs and aggressive advertising which emphasise equality of opportunity. The statistics, however, are less than convincing, with 2008 data from the Equal Employment for Women in the Workplace agency signalling that women are disproportionately represented in senior management levels compared to men, and that the numbers of women at Chief Executive Officer level in corporate Australia have actually decreased (Equal Opportunity for Women Agency, 2008). Women, it seems, are still unable to shatter the glass ceiling and are consistently overlooked at executive level.

Psychology Tension-type headache is extremely prevalent and is associated with significant personal and social costs.

Education One of the major challenges of higher education health programs is developing the cognitive abilities that will assist undergraduate students' clinical decision making. This is achieved by stimulating enquiry analysis, creating independent judgement and developing cognitive skills that are in line with graduate practice (Hollingworth and McLoughlin 2001; Bedard, 1996).

Visual arts In the East, the traditional idea of the body was not as something separate from the mind. In the West, however, the body is still perceived as separate, as a counterpart of the mind. The body is increasingly at the centre of the changing cultural environment, particularly the increasingly visual culture exemplified by the ubiquity of the image, the emergence of virtual reality, voyeurism and surveillance culture. Within the contemporary visual environment, the body's segregation from the mind has become more intense than ever, conferring upon the body a 'being watched' or 'manufacturable' status, further undermining the sense of the body as an integral part of our being.

Literature review summary

The next step following the research justification in the introduction is the literature review summary statement. This part of the introduction summarises the literature review section of the research proposal, providing a concise statement that signals the field of research and the rationale for the research question or aim.

It can be helpful to think about the literature review element as comprised of four parts. The first is a reference to the field or discipline the research will contribute to. The second is a summary of the main questions, approaches or accepted conclusions in your topic area in the field or discipline at present ('what is known'). This summary of existing research acts as a contrast to highlight the significance of the third part, your statement of a 'gap'. The fourth part rephrases this 'gap' in the form of a research question, aim, objective or hypothesis.

For example

Scholars writing about ... (the problem area) in the field of ... (discipline or sub-discipline, part one) have observed that ... ('what is known', part two). Others describe ... ('what is known', part two). A more recent perspective chronicles changes that, in broad outline, parallel those that have occurred in ... ('what is known', part two). This study differs from these approaches in that it considers ... ('gap', research focus, part three). This research draws on ... to consider ... (research objective, part four).  

More information about writing these four parts of the literature review summary is provided below.

1. The 'field' of literature

The field of research is the academic discipline within which your research is situated, and to which it will contribute. Some fields grow out of a single discipline, others are multidisciplinary. The field or discipline is linked to university courses and research, academic journals, conferences and other academic associations, and some book publishers. It also describes the expertise of thesis supervisors and examiners. 

The discipline defines the kinds of approaches, theories, methods and styles of writing adopted by scholars and researchers working within them.

For a list of academic disciplines have a look at the wikipedia site at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines

The field or discipline is not the same as the topic of the research. The topic is the subject matter or foci of your research. Disciplines or 'fields' refer to globally recognised areas of research and scholarship.

The field or discipline the research aims to contribute to can be signalled in a few key words within the literature review summary, or possibly earlier withn the research justification.

Sentence stems to signal the field of research 

• Within the field of ... there is now agreement that ... .
• The field of ... is marked by ongoing debate about ... .
• Following analysis of ... the field of ... turned to an exploration of ... .

2. A summary of contrasting areas of research or what is 'known'

The newness or significance of what you are doing is typically established in a contrast or dialogue with other research and scholarship. The 'gap' (or hole in the donut) only becomes apparent by the surrounding literature (or donut). Sometimes a contrast is provided to show that you are working in a different area to what has been done before, or to show that you are building on previous work, or perhaps working on an unresolved issue within a discipline. It might also be that the approaches of other disciplines on the same problem area or focus are introduced to highlight a new angle on the topic.

3. The summary of the 'gap' in the literature

The 'gap' in the field typically refers to the explanation provided to support the research question. Questions or objectives grow out of areas of uncertainty, or gaps, in the field of research. In most cases, you will not know what the gap in knowledge is until you have reviewed the literature and written up a good part of the literature review section of the proposal. It is often not possible therefore to confidently write the 'gap' statement until you have done considerable work on the literature review. Once your literature review section is sufficiently developed, you can summarise the missing piece of knowledge in a brief statement in the introduction.

Sentence stems for summarising a 'gap' in the literature

Indicate a gap in the previous research by raising a question about it, or extending previous knowledge in some way:

• However, there is little information/attention/work/data/research on … .
• However, few studies/investigations/researchers/attempt to … .

Often steps two and three blend together in the same sentence, as in the sentence stems below.

Sentence stems which both introduce research in the field (what is 'known') and summarise a 'gap'

• The research has tended to focus on …(introduce existing field foci), rather than on … ('gap').
• These studies have emphasised that … …(introduce what is known), but it remains unclear whether … ('gap').
• Although considerable research has been devoted to … (introduce field areas), rather less attention has been paid to … ('gap').

The 'significance' of the research

When writing the research proposal, it is useful to think about the research justification and the  ‘gap in the literature’ as two distinct conceptual elements, each of which must be established separately. Stating a real world problem or outlining a conceptual or other conundrum or concern is typically not, in itself, enough to justify the research. Similarly, establishing that there is a gap in the literature is often not enough on its own to persuade the reader that the research is important. In the first case, reviewers may still wonder ‘perhaps the problem or concern has already been addressed in the literature’, or, in the second, ‘so little has been done on this focus, but perhaps the proposed research is not important’? The proposal will ideally establish that the research is important, and that it will provide something new to the field of knowledge.

In effect, the research justification and the literature review work together to establish the benefit, contribution or 'significance' of the research. The 'significance' of the research is established not in a statement to be incorporated into the proposal, but as something the first two sections of the proposal work to establish. Research is significant when it pertains to something important, and when it provides new knowledge or insights within a field of knowledge.

4. The research aim or objective

The research aim is usually expressed as a concise statement at the close of the literature review. It may be referred to as an objective, a question or an aim. These terms are often used interchangeably to refer to the focus of the investigation. The research focus is the question at the heart of the research, designed to produce new knowledge. To avoid confusing the reader about the purpose of the research it is best to express it as either an aim, or an objective, or a question. It is also important to frame the aims of the research in a succinct manner; no more than three dot points say. And the aim/objective/question should be framed in more or less the same way wherever it appears in the proposal. This ensures the research focus is clear.

Language use

Research generally aims to produce knowledge, as opposed to say recommendations, policy or social change. Research may support policy or social change, and eventually produce it in some of its applications, but it does not typically produce it (with the possible exception of action research). For this reason, aims and objectives are framed in terms of knowledge production, using phrases like:

• to increase understanding, insight, clarity;
• to evaluate and critique;
• to test models, theory, or strategies.

These are all knowledge outcomes that can be achieved within the research process.

Reflecting your social philosophy in the research aim

A well written research aim typically carries within it information about the philosophical approach the research will take, even if the researcher is not themselves aware of it, or if the proposal does not discuss philosophy or social theory at any length. If you are interested in social theory, you might consider framing your aim such that it reflects your philosophical or theoretical approach. Since your philosophical approach reflects your beliefs about how 'valid' knowledge can be gained, and therefore the types of questions you ask, it follows that it will be evident within your statement of the research aim. Researchers, variously, hold that knowledge of the world arises through:

• observations of phenomena (measurements of what we can see, hear, taste, touch);
• the interactions between interpreting human subjects and objective phenomena in the world;
• ideology shaped by power, which we may be unconscious of, and which must be interrogated and replaced with knowledge that reflects people's true interests; 
• the structure of language and of the unconscious;
• the play of historical relations between human actions, institutional practices and prevailing discourses;
• metaphoric and other linguistic relations established within language and text.

The philosophical perspective underpinning your research is then reflected in the research aim. For example, depending upon your philosophical perspective, you may aim to find out about:

• observable phenomenon or facts;
• shared cultural meanings of practices, rituals, events that determine how objective phenomena are interpreted and experienced;
• social structures and political ideologies that shape experience and distort authentic or empowered experience;
• the structure of language;
• the historical evolution of networks of discursive and extra-discursive practices;
• emerging or actual phenomenon untainted by existing representation.

You might check your aim statement to ensure it reflects the philosophical perspective you claim to adopt in your proposal. Check that there are not contradictions in your philosophical claims and that you are consistent in your approach. For assistance with this you may find the Social philosophy of research resources helpful.

Sentence stems for aims and objectives

• The purpose of this research project is to … .
• The purpose of this investigation is to … .
• The aim of this research project is to … .
• This study is designed to … .

The next step or key element in the research proposal is the research design. The research design explains how the research aims will be achieved. Within the introduction a summary of the overall research design can make the project more accessible to the reader.

The summary statement of the research design within the introduction might include:

• the method/s that will be used (interviews, surveys, video observation, diary recording);
• if the research will be phased, how many phases, and what methods will be used in each phase;
• brief reference to how the data will be analysed.

The statement of the research design is often the last thing discussed in the research proposal introduction.

NB. It is not necessary to explain that a literature review and a detailed ouline of the methods and methodology will follow because academic readers will assume this.

Title: Aboriginal cultural values and economic sustainability: A case study of agro-forestry in a remote Aboriginal community

Further examples can be found at the end of this topic, and in the drop down for this topic in the left menu. 

In summary, the introduction contains a problem statement, or explanation of why the research is important to the world, a summary of the literature review, and a summary of the research design. The introduction enables the reviewer, as well as yourself and your supervisory team, to assess the logical connections between the research justification, the 'gap' in the literature, research aim and the research design without getting lost in the detail of the project. In this sense, the introduction serves as a kind of map or abstract of the proposed research as well as of the main body of the research proposal.

The following questions may be useful in assessing your research proposal introduction.

• Have I clearly signalled the research topic in the key words and phrases used in the first sentence and title of the research proposal?
• Have I explained why my research matters, the problem or issue that underlies the research in the opening sentences,  paragraphs and page/s?
• Have I used literature, examples or other evidence to substantiate my understanding of the key issues?
• Have I explained the problem in a way that grabs the reader’s attention and concern?
• Have I indicated the field/s within which my research is situated using key words that are recognised by other scholars?
• Have I provided a summary of previous research and outlined a 'gap' in the literature?
• Have I provided a succinct statement of the objectives or aims of my research?
• Have I provided a summary of the research phases and methods?

This resource was developed by Wendy Bastalich.

Rationale for the Study

It is important for you to be able to explain the importance of the research you are conducting by providing valid arguments. Rationale for the study, also referred to as justification for the study, is reason why you have conducted your study in the first place. This part in your paper needs to explain uniqueness and importance of your research. Rationale for the study needs to be specific and ideally, it should relate to the following points:

1. The research needs to contribute to the elimination of a gap in the literature. Elimination of gap in the present literature is one of the compulsory requirements for your study. In other words, you don’t need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ and your research aims and objectives need to focus on new topics. For example, you can choose to conduct an empirical study to assess the implications of COVID-19 pandemic on the numbers of tourists visitors in your city. This might be previously undressed topic, taking into account that COVID-19 pandemic is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Alternatively, if you cannot find a new topic to research, you can attempt to offer fresh perspectives on existing management, business or economic issues. For example, while thousands of studies have been previously conducted to study various aspects of leadership, this topic as far from being exhausted as a research area. Specifically, new studies can be conducted in the area of leadership to analyze the impacts of new communication mediums such as TikTok, and other social networking sites on leadership practices.

You can also discuss the shortcomings of previous works devoted to your research area. Shortcomings in previous studies can be divided into three groups:

a) Methodological limitations . Methodology employed in previous study may be flawed in terms of research design, research approach or sampling.

b) Contextual limitations . Relevance of previous works may be non-existent for the present because external factors have changed.

c) Conceptual limitations . Previous studies may be unjustifiably bound up to a particular model or an ideology.

While discussing the shortcomings of previous studies you should explain how you are going to correct them. This principle is true to almost all areas in business studies i.e. gaps or shortcomings in the literature can be found in relation to almost all areas of business and economics.

2. The research can be conducted to solve a specific problem. It helps if you can explain why you are the right person and in the right position to solve the problem. You have to explain the essence of the problem in a detailed manner and highlight practical benefits associated with the solution of the problem. Suppose, your dissertation topic is “a study into advantages and disadvantages of various entry strategies into Chinese market”. In this case, you can say that practical implications of your research relates to assisting businesses aiming to enter Chinese market to do more informed decision making.

Alternatively, if your research is devoted to the analysis of impacts of CSR programs and initiatives on brand image, practical contributions of your study would relate to contributing to the level of effectiveness of CSR programs of businesses.

Additional examples of studies that can assist to address specific practical problems may include the following:

• A study into the reasons of high employee turnover at Hanson Brick
• A critical analysis of employee motivation problems at Esporta, Finchley Road, London
• A research into effective succession planning at Microsoft
• A study into major differences between private and public primary education in the USA and implications of these differences on the quality of education

However, it is important to note that it is not an obligatory for a dissertation   to be associated with the solution of a specific problem. Dissertations can be purely theory-based as well. Examples of such studies include the following:

• Born or bred: revising The Great Man theory of leadership in the 21 st century
• A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory to the US information technology industry
• Neoliberalism as a major reason behind the emergence of the global financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009
• Analysis of Lewin’s Model of Change and its relevance to pharmaceutical sector of France

3. Your study has to contribute to the level of professional development of the researcher . That is you. You have to explain in a detailed manner in what ways your research contributes to the achievement of your long-term career aspirations.

For example, you have selected a research topic of “ A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory in the US information technology industry ”.  You may state that you associate your career aspirations with becoming an IT executive in the US, and accordingly, in-depth knowledge of employee motivation in this industry is going to contribute your chances of success in your chosen career path.

Therefore, you are in a better position if you have already identified your career objectives, so that during the research process you can get detailed knowledge about various aspects of your chosen industry.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.

John Dudovskiy

How to Write the Rationale for a Research Paper

• Research Process
• Peer Review

A research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work. A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at the purpose of a research rationale, its components and key characteristics, and how to create an effective research rationale.

Updated on September 19, 2022

The rationale for your research is the reason why you decided to conduct the study in the first place. The motivation for asking the question. The knowledge gap. This is often the most significant part of your publication. It justifies the study's purpose, novelty, and significance for science or society. It's a critical part of standard research articles as well as funding proposals.

Essentially, the research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every (good) adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work.

A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at:

• the purpose of a research rationale
• its components and key characteristics
• how to create an effective research rationale

What is a research rationale?

Think of a research rationale as a set of reasons that explain why a study is necessary and important based on its background. It's also known as the justification of the study, rationale, or thesis statement.

Essentially, you want to convince your reader that you're not reciting what other people have already said and that your opinion hasn't appeared out of thin air. You've done the background reading and identified a knowledge gap that this rationale now explains.

A research rationale is usually written toward the end of the introduction. You'll see this section clearly in high-impact-factor international journals like Nature and Science. At the end of the introduction there's always a phrase that begins with something like, "here we show..." or "in this paper we show..." This text is part of a logical sequence of information, typically (but not necessarily) provided in this order:

Here's an example from a study by Cataldo et al. (2021) on the impact of social media on teenagers' lives.

Note how the research background, gap, rationale, and objectives logically blend into each other.

The authors chose to put the research aims before the rationale. This is not a problem though. They still achieve a logical sequence. This helps the reader follow their thinking and convinces them about their research's foundation.

Elements of a research rationale

We saw that the research rationale follows logically from the research background and literature review/observation and leads into your study's aims and objectives.

This might sound somewhat abstract. A helpful way to formulate a research rationale is to answer the question, “Why is this study necessary and important?”

Generally, that something has never been done before should not be your only motivation. Use it only If you can give the reader valid evidence why we should learn more about this specific phenomenon.

A well-written introduction covers three key elements:

• What's the background to the research?
• What has been done before (information relevant to this particular study, but NOT a literature review)?
• Research rationale

Now, let's see how you might answer the question.

1. This study complements scientific knowledge and understanding

Discuss the shortcomings of previous studies and explain how'll correct them. Your short review can identify:

• Methodological limitations . The methodology (research design, research approach or sampling) employed in previous works is somewhat flawed.

Example : Here , the authors claim that previous studies have failed to explore the role of apathy “as a predictor of functional decline in healthy older adults” (Burhan et al., 2021). At the same time, we know a lot about other age-related neuropsychiatric disorders, like depression.

Their study is necessary, then, “to increase our understanding of the cognitive, clinical, and neural correlates of apathy and deconstruct its underlying mechanisms.” (Burhan et al., 2021).

• Contextual limitations . External factors have changed and this has minimized or removed the relevance of previous research.

Example : You want to do an empirical study to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of tourists visiting Sicily. Previous studies might have measured tourism determinants in Sicily, but they preceded COVID-19.

• Conceptual limitations . Previous studies are too bound to a specific ideology or a theoretical framework.

Example : The work of English novelist E. M. Forster has been extensively researched for its social, political, and aesthetic dimensions. After the 1990s, younger scholars wanted to read his novels as an example of gay fiction. They justified the need to do so based on previous studies' reliance on homophobic ideology.

This kind of rationale is most common in basic/theoretical research.

2. This study can help solve a specific problem

Here, you base your rationale on a process that has a problem or is not satisfactory.

For example, patients complain about low-quality hospital care on weekends (staff shortages, inadequate attention, etc.). No one has looked into this (there is a lack of data). So, you explore if the reported problems are true and what can be done to address them. This is a knowledge gap.

Or you set out to explore a specific practice. You might want to study the pros and cons of several entry strategies into the Japanese food market.

It's vital to explain the problem in detail and stress the practical benefits of its solution. In the first example, the practical implications are recommendations to improve healthcare provision.

In the second example, the impact of your research is to inform the decision-making of businesses wanting to enter the Japanese food market.

This kind of rationale is more common in applied/practical research.

3. You're the best person to conduct this study

It's a bonus if you can show that you're uniquely positioned to deliver this study, especially if you're writing a funding proposal .

For an anthropologist wanting to explore gender norms in Ethiopia, this could be that they speak Amharic (Ethiopia's official language) and have already lived in the country for a few years (ethnographic experience).

Or if you want to conduct an interdisciplinary research project, consider partnering up with collaborators whose expertise complements your own. Scientists from different fields might bring different skills and a fresh perspective or have access to the latest tech and equipment. Teaming up with reputable collaborators justifies the need for a study by increasing its credibility and likely impact.

When is the research rationale written?

You can write your research rationale before, or after, conducting the study.

In the first case, when you might have a new research idea, and you're applying for funding to implement it.

Or you're preparing a call for papers for a journal special issue or a conference. Here , for instance, the authors seek to collect studies on the impact of apathy on age-related neuropsychiatric disorders.

In the second case, you have completed the study and are writing a research paper for publication. Looking back, you explain why you did the study in question and how it worked out.

Although the research rationale is part of the introduction, it's best to write it at the end. Stand back from your study and look at it in the big picture. At this point, it's easier to convince your reader why your study was both necessary and important.

How long should a research rationale be?

The length of the research rationale is not fixed. Ideally, this will be determined by the guidelines (of your journal, sponsor etc.).

The prestigious journal Nature , for instance, calls for articles to be no more than 6 or 8 pages, depending on the content. The introduction should be around 200 words, and, as mentioned, two to three sentences serve as a brief account of the background and rationale of the study, and come at the end of the introduction.

If you're not provided guidelines, consider these factors:

• Research document : In a thesis or book-length study, the research rationale will be longer than in a journal article. For example, the background and rationale of this book exploring the collective memory of World War I cover more than ten pages.
• Research question : Research into a new sub-field may call for a longer or more detailed justification than a study that plugs a gap in literature.

Which verb tenses to use in the research rationale?

It's best to use the present tense. Though in a research proposal, the research rationale is likely written in the future tense, as you're describing the intended or expected outcomes of the research project (the gaps it will fill, the problems it will solve).

Example of a research rationale

Research question : What are the teachers' perceptions of how a sense of European identity is developed and what underlies such perceptions?

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77-101.

Burhan, A.M., Yang, J., & Inagawa, T. (2021). Impact of apathy on aging and age-related neuropsychiatric disorders. Research Topic. Frontiers in Psychiatry

Cataldo, I., Lepri, B., Neoh, M. J. Y., & Esposito, G. (2021). Social media usage and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 11.

CiCe Jean Monnet Network (2017). Guidelines for citizenship education in school: Identities and European citizenship children's identity and citizenship in Europe.

Cohen, l, Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education . Eighth edition. London: Routledge.

de Prat, R. C. (2013). Euroscepticism, Europhobia and Eurocriticism: The radical parties of the right and left “vis-à-vis” the European Union P.I.E-Peter Lang S.A., Éditions Scientifiques Internationales.

European Commission. (2017). Eurydice Brief: Citizenship education at school in Europe.

Polyakova, A., & Fligstein, N. (2016). Is European integration causing Europe to become more nationalist? Evidence from the 2007–9 financial crisis. Journal of European Public Policy , 23(1), 60-83.

Winter, J. (2014). Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

MENTORSHIP/SUPPORT

• Enugu, Nigeria.
• (234)-701-114-7037
• [email protected]
• Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed

How to Write Justification of the Study in Research

• Latest Blog

The justification of the study is also referred to as the rationale for the study . It is what inspired you to research a given topic. As students, it is very important to know that research writing is not just one of the things we do for leisure, research is a vital part of human endeavour, it is through research done in the past that a lot of improvements are seen today around the world. Research should be able to fill a gap and provide solutions to an existing problem, hence researchers must do due diligence in identifying the reasons for starting a research work and be able to justify their reasons for embarking on a research journey.

If a research project is to be carried out on “Introduction of Digital Libraries for Students in Nigeria Senior Secondary Schools” it is expected that the researcher has found some setbacks in the study pattern of students or the limitations of using the physical libraries on campus.

The researcher must be able to give the reasons behind his choice of research topic, the importance of digital library should outweigh the challenges it poses.

The researcher should be able to justify the reasons for selecting a chosen project topic and discuss why the research study is needed.

For research to be justified, four main criteria must be discussed to convince the supervisor or readers that a study is worthy of undertaking.

• The size or area involved in the study should be discussed, the researcher needs to show the geographical area or locations that the research would cover and provide reasons for the choice of area and what the outcome of the study will do for such area.
• The research gaps found in previous literature of similar studies should be discussed. The researcher must show the missing piece from other literature that needs to be bridged and the reasons for the endeavour. The importance of filling research gaps should be told including the necessary contributions to the body of knowledge that the study would project at the end of the investigations and findings.
• The researcher should be able to justice that there has been an improved methodology or the processes of carrying out the type of research undertaken and should show how the study intends to incorporate the enhanced methods of carrying out research in the selected field or subject to investigate.
• The researcher should discuss the main benefits of the research to the general public, profession, group, institutions, the government policies and practices in the concerned field of study and how these benefits will enable future researchers and authors to make or develop future theories, literature and additional inputs in the coming days.

For private consultancy or tutor contact us

Leave a Comment .

Cancel reply.

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

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, how to write the rationale for your research.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 19 November, 2021

The rationale for one’s research is the justification for undertaking a given study. It states the reason(s) why a researcher chooses to focus on the topic in question, including what the significance is and what gaps the research intends to fill. In short, it is an explanation that rationalises the need for the study. The rationale is typically followed by a hypothesis/ research question (s) and the study objectives.

When is the rationale for research written?

The rationale of a study can be presented both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before : The rationale is a crucial part of your research proposal , representing the plan of your work as formulated before you execute your study.
• After : Once the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research paper or dissertation to explain why you focused on the particular question. In this instance, you would link the rationale of your research project to the study aims and outcomes.

Basis for writing the research rationale

The study rationale is predominantly based on preliminary data . A literature review will help you identify gaps in the current knowledge base and also ensure that you avoid duplicating what has already been done. You can then formulate the justification for your study from the existing literature on the subject and the perceived outcomes of the proposed study.

Length of the research rationale

In a research proposal or research article, the rationale would not take up more than a few sentences . A thesis or dissertation would allow for a longer description, which could even run into a couple of paragraphs . The length might even depend on the field of study or nature of the experiment. For instance, a completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification.

Basic elements of the research rationale

Every research rationale should include some mention or discussion of the following: 

• An overview of your conclusions from your literature review
• Gaps in current knowledge
• Inconclusive or controversial findings from previous studies
• The need to build on previous research (e.g. unanswered questions, the need to update concepts in light of new findings and/or new technical advancements). 

Example of a research rationale

Note: This uses a fictional study.

Abc xyz is a newly identified microalgal species isolated from fish tanks. While Abc xyz algal blooms have been seen as a threat to pisciculture, some studies have hinted at their unusually high carotenoid content and unique carotenoid profile. Carotenoid profiling has been carried out only in a handful of microalgal species from this genus, and the search for microalgae rich in bioactive carotenoids has not yielded promising candidates so far. This in-depth examination of the carotenoid profile of Abc xyz will help identify and quantify novel and potentially useful carotenoids from an untapped aquaculture resource .

In conclusion

It is important to describe the rationale of your research in order to put the significance and novelty of your specific research project into perspective. Once you have successfully articulated the reason(s) for your research, you will have convinced readers of the importance of your work!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

How to identify Gaps in research and determine your original research topic

Charlesworth Author Services 14/09/2021 00:00:00

Tips for designing your Research Question

Charlesworth Author Services 01/08/2017 00:00:00

Why and How to do a literature search

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 1: Know when are you ready to write

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication- Module 3: Understand the structure of an academic paper

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 4: Prepare to write your academic paper

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

Article sections.

How to write an Introduction to an academic article

Writing a strong Methods section

Charlesworth Author Services 12/03/2021 00:00:00

Strategies for writing the Results section in a scientific paper

Charlesworth Author Services 27/10/2021 00:00:00

Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology pp 1027–1031 Cite as

Justification, Overview

• Abram Trosky 2 ,
• Kathleen Malley-Morrison 3 &
• Candace Cantrell 3  
• Reference work entry

324 Accesses

Introduction

Nowhere has the critical impulse “overshot its target” as widely as in relation to the concept and activity of justification (Latour, 2002 ). The truth of this proposition in psychology is evidenced in the ambiguity of language and concepts dealing with the truth of propositions generally: Reasons are not always reasonable, but often “rationalizations”; moral justification might as easily be called “moralizing”; and what is “just” can always be countered as just one’s opinion.

A great deal of psychological theory and research focuses on the construction and deconstruction of justifications, with much of this work documenting the ways in which justifications can be self-serving (Gino & Ariely, 2012 ; Wolff & Moser, 2008 ), group serving (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001 ), or system serving (Day, Kay, Holmes, & Napier, 2011 ; Jost & Banaji, 1994 ; Shepherd & Kay, 2012 ). The emancipatory potential of critical psychology’s contribution lies not only in critique of ego-justification and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Arsanjani, M. H. (1999). The Rome statute of the international criminal court. The American Journal of International Law, 93 (1), 22–43.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (3), 193–209.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 , 125–135.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 87–99.

Blumoff, T. Y. (2009). The neuropsychology of justifications and excuses : Some problematic cases of self - defense , duress and provocation . Unpublished manuscript, Mercer University School of Law. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/theodore_blumoff/2

Burke, A. (2005). Against the new internationalism. Ethics & International Affairs, 19 (2), 73–89.

Chalquist, C. (2001). Turning psychology’s up side down: Toward an available psycholiteracy. Radical Psychology , 2 ( 2 ).

Google Scholar  

Christie, D. J., Tint, B. S., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2008). Peace psychology for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 63 (6), 540–552.

Clark, A. (2010). The ABCs of human survival: A paradigm for global citizenship . Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University Press.

Clark, I. (2007). Legitimacy in international society . USA: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cohrs, J. C. (2003). Patterns of justification of the United States’ war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Psicología Política, 27 , 105–118.

Curtis, A. (2009). Century of the self . Big D Films.

Day, M. V., Kay, A. C., Homes, J. G., & Napier, J. L. (2011). System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (2), 291–306.

Doyle, M. W. (2011). Liberal peace : Selected essays (1st ed.). Routledge.

Etzioni, A. (2010). The normativity of human rights is self-evident. Human Rights Quarterly, 32 (1), 187–197.

Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (2009). Critical psychology : An introduction . Sage.

Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (3), 445–459.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion . New York: Pantheon Books.

Henderson, M., & Hewstone, M. (1984). Prison inmates’ explanations for interpersonal violence: Accounts and attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52 (5), 789–784.

Holland, R. W., Meertens, R. M., & van Vugt, M. (2002). Dissonance on the road: Self-esteem as a moderator of internal and external self-justification strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (12), 1713–1724.

Holzkamp, K. (1992). On doing psychology critically. Theory Psychology, 2 (2), 193–204.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33 (1), 1–27.

Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the gulf. Peace Research, 23 (2–3), 25–32.

Latour, B. (2002). War of the worlds: What about peace? (C. Bigg, Trans.). Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

Latour, B. (2003). The promises of constructivism. In D. Ihde (Ed.), Chasing technology - matrix of materiality . Indiana University Press, pp. 27–46.

MacIntyre, A. (1989). Whose justice which rationality (1st ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.

Malley-Morrison, K., & Trosky, A. (2011). The better part of valor: Discretion in the study of intercultural communication. PsycCRITIQUES , 56 (16).

Orend, B. (2002). Human rights (1st ed.). Broadview Press.

Reynolds, S., Leavitt, K., & Decelles, K. (2010). Automatic ethics: the effects of implicit assumptions and contextual cues on moral behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 , 752–760.

Scanlon, T. M. (2008). Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, blame . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2012). On the perpetuation of ignorance: System dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (2), 264–280.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance . Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M. B. (2008). Thoughts for peace at a time of doubt. Peace and Conflict, 14 , 365–367.

Teo, T. (1999). Methodologies of critical psychology: Illustrations from the field of racism. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1 , 119–134.

Tolman, C. W., & Maiers, W. (1991). Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars : a moral argument with historical illustrations . Basic Books.

Weiss, T. G. (2010). How United Nations ideas change history. Review of International Studies, 36 , 3–23.

Wolff, H. G., & Moser, K. (2008). Choice, accountability, and effortful processing in escalation situations. Journal of Psychology, 216 (4), 235–243.

Online Resources

Moral Foundations Theory: http://www.moralfoundations.org/

Philosophical Society: http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/

The Righteous Mind: http://righteousmind.com

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Abram Trosky

Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Kathleen Malley-Morrison & Candace Cantrell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abram Trosky .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Trosky, A., Malley-Morrison, K., Cantrell, C. (2014). Justification, Overview. In: Teo, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_587

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_587

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-5582-0

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-5583-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Sciences

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.33(12); 2018 Mar 19

Systematic Reviews: Challenges for Their Justification, Related Comprehensive Searches, and Implications

Durga prasanna misra.

Department of Clinical Immunology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Vikas Agarwal

Relevance of evidence-based medicine (ebm).

Scientific research in health sciences aims to enhance knowledge about diseases and attempt to find better and newer diagnostic and therapeutic tools. With economic growth worldwide, the number of published scientific papers is exponentially increasing. 1 For the practicing clinician, it is important to be able to analyze and comprehend healthcare evidence in the shortest possible time. With the growth of scientific literature, the concept of EBM has garnered increasing attention in the past three decades. Defined as an attempt to most appropriately utilize the currently available and best evidence toward making individual patient care decisions, 2 EBM has witnessed growth in parallel with the voluminous amounts of scientific literature being published today. Broadly speaking, four major steps are involved in EBM. It starts with the identification of a clinical problem, followed by an appropriate literature search to solve it. Synthesis of thereby-derived search results culminate in the utilization of these search results to identify the most appropriate solution to the aforementioned clinical problem. 3

NARRATIVE VERSUS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Review articles are attempts to synthesize information in a particular area of interest and present it to the reader (busy clinician), who can then utilize processed evidence-based reports to make informed choices relevant to their patient. Reviews can be narrative or systematic. Narrative reviews are broader in scope, with a flexible structure, allowing the authors to be more exploratory in their approach toward a particular problem. 4 Often, the narrative review may reflect certain points based on the authors experience, especially in niches on which little or no evidence exist, for example in the treatment of rare diseases. Some journals may not consider it mandatory to have a search strategy, detailing how the literature was searched (keywords), time limits of searches, and bibliographic databases accessed. However, it is highly desirable to include a search strategy even in narrative reviews as it provides the readers the proof of a methodical approach, as well as a reference point in time from which another future narrative review may focus on newer literature, thereby limiting redundancy. Systematic reviews, on the other hand, are directed toward answering a specific question and focusing on a few citable points.

Systematic reviews have a pre-defined structure, 5 based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 6 This starts with the development of a protocol detailing the plan of the review, which is preferably pre-published. Thereafter, a systematic literature review should be conducted, which must be extensive, based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, covering multiple databases and preferably, also attempt to look at unpublished literature by browsing abstracts of major conferences and ongoing clinical trials. The generation of a PRISMA flowchart to summarize the results of such a literature search is mandatory. This is followed by a qualitative synthesis of the selected studies. Should it be feasible to provide a quantitative estimate of the same by pooling data from different studies, this forms the next stage — meta-analysis. It is important to understand that performing a meta-analysis is not mandatory, and should only be done when appropriate, i.e., when data from different studies have looked at comparable outcomes and there is absence of significant heterogeneity. Should meta-analysis be undertaken for significantly heterogenous data, it is imperative to use the random effects model as opposed to the fixed effects model. In addition, one should also undertake analysis of the quality of included studies, utilizing tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for assessing observational studies (cohort and case-control studies) 7 or the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation profiler (GRADEpro) 8 for interventional studies. Assessment of publication bias to minimize the skewing of results of a systematic review by missing unpublished negative studies is advisable, but generally only when ten or more studies are available. 5

The PRISMA guidelines mention the requirement to present the complete search strategy for at least one full electronic database. 9 However, the requirement to conduct a comprehensive search across databases, and through conference abstracts and clinical trial registries, is not adequately emphasized. In this regard, recommendations emphasizing the need to conduct thorough searches through multiple bibliographic databases need to be considered. 4 Authors may consider combining these guidelines 4 with PRISMA to enhance the comprehensiveness of their searches, as rightly noted in a recently published exemplary systematic review. 10 Table 1 compares narrative and systematic reviews, based on previously published literature 11 , 12 , 13 as well as the authors' own experience.

PROSPERO = International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Another question is whether the same topic can be explored in narrative and systematic reviews. It is quite possible, but systematic reviews are focused on highly specific questions with a limited number of references, as opposed to narrative reviews, which are broader in scope with several citable points and reference counts exceeding one hundred. 11 If such a question arises whether to conduct a systematic or narrative review, we opine that it is better to perform a systematic one. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that systematic reviews are likely to garner more citations than narrative reviews. 14 , 15 , 16

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN THE LADDER OF EBM

Systematic reviews are of two major types: those on interventions and overviews of observational data. In the latter group, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of genetic data constitute a significant proportion.

Systematic reviews are possible to perform when there are multiple related primary studies, and there is a need to numerically summate available research results across articles to generate the highest possible evidence. 17 Evidence derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials is considered the most definitive in guiding clinical decisions and healthcare policies. Such meta-analyses often form the cornerstone of practice guidelines. Moreover, such papers are likely to garner greater number of citations, hence, are of special interest to high-impact journals. As an example, a recent publication on highly-cited systematic reviews in medicine included a rheumatology paper with over 800 total citations (141 citations annually on average). 18

COCHRANE AND INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE REGISTER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (PROSPERO) REGISTRIES OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

The Cochrane Collaboration is a multinational collaborative network of experts in methodology of performing systematic reviews. 19 Systematic reviews are those on interventional studies undertaken by the Cochrane Collaboration and published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). The CDSR is a registry and a high-impact peer reviewed journal at the same time. Various different Cochrane groups look at different areas of medicine. 20 Reviews published in the CDSR initially have a published protocol, followed by a full systematic review, strictly adhering to the published protocol. Both protocols and full reviews are reviewed by experts and patients. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated to reflect advances in a particular area. 19 Over the years, findings described in Cochrane reviews have driven healthcare policies in numerous guidelines. 21

Cochrane reviews are well cited. For example, reviews in musculoskeletal medicine rank sixth in terms of citations among other subject-related Cochrane reviews. 22

A systematic review should have a pre-published protocol. To understand the need for this, one needs to understand the concept of redundancy. The adjective “redundant” is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “Not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.” A review published in an area where there already exists previously or recently published article is redundant in terms of contribution toward the scientific literature. Simultaneously performed reviews are likely to reach the same conclusion. Multiple reviews on a single topic may also confuse readers. Herein lies the importance of pre-registering such reviews, so that prospective authors can avoid wasting their resources by undertaking redundant studies. The scope of the problem of redundancy in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been addressed in a recent article. 23

Titles of already registered reviews under the Cochrane Collaboration are available for everyone to view, in order to avoid duplicate efforts. However, conducting and publishing a systematic review under the umbrella of the Cochrane Collaboration, while being highly prestigious, involves a strictly modulated process. Should authors intend to embark on a review not yet registered in the Cochrane Library, they can register their review at the PROSPERO, 24 which also reflects titles registered with Cochrane. PROSPERO registers only those reviews which have at least a single outcome of direct relevance to the care of a patient. 24 Most journals nowadays expect systematic reviews to be pre-registered at PROSPERO to avoid potential redundancy.

Regarding reviews not directly dealing with health outcomes, such as systematic reviews on genetic data, such as polymorphisms and susceptibility towards disease, it may not be possible to register them under PROSPERO. There exists an unmet need to develop a register to pre-register such reviews to avoid redundancy in this sort of reviews.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN RHEUMATOLOGY AND RETRACTIONS

To assess the current state of published systematic reviews in the field of rheumatology, we conducted a PubMed search utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms “Osteoarthritis,” “Arthritis, Rheumatoid,” “Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic,” (“Scleroderma, Systemic” OR “Scleroderma, Diffuse”), “Systemic Vasculitis,” “Spondyloarthropathies,” “Fibromyalgia,” “Myositis,” “Arthritis, Juvenile,” restricting the results to the article type “Systematic reviews.” We compared the numbers of articles published up to the end of 2007 to those published from 2008 until present (November 21, 2017). As shown in Fig. 1 , the number of systematic reviews in each area has increased exponentially during the last ten years.

Number of published systematic reviews in different rheumatic diseases — comparison before and after 2007. PubMed search (November 21, 2017) limited to article type “Systematic reviews” for each disease done separately.

Identification of major problems in the published literature can result in retractions of published papers. 25 To assess the extent of this problem in systematic reviews, we searched the PubMed database on November 21, 2017 limiting our search to publication type “Retraction of publication” and article type “Systematic reviews.” We identified 88 retracted reviews. Of these, one was a duplicate retraction notice, another one an accidental republication by the publisher. One article had been prematurely published accidentally by the publisher whereas in another one, it could not be clearly ascertained from the search or by visiting the journal page whether the paper had been retracted or not. Of the remaining 84 retractions, all except two had been retracted from 2009 onward, suggesting that this was an emerging problem. We analyzed them for the country of publication (address of corresponding author), and further compared them to identify what percentage of similar articles published from that country did this figure constitute. ​ constitute. represents the results.

Proportion of retracted systematic reviews out of total number of systematic reviews from these countries (× 10 −5 ). Numbers above each bar represent the absolute number of such retracted systematic reviews. PubMed search (November 21, 2017) limited to article type “Systematic reviews” for each country done separately.

Further, we did a Scopus search utilizing the search terms “systematic reviews” and “retraction” on December 1, 2017. We identified one more retracted systematic review. For the total 85 systematic reviews identified through the aforementioned PubMed and Scopus searches, we looked at the reasons for type of systematic reviews retracted, classifying them into reviews on interventions and observational data (separately for genetic data) ( Fig. 3 ). Reviews of observational data accounted for 49 out of 85 retractions. A detailed analysis of six retracted systematic reviews in the field of rheumatology ( Table 2 ) 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 suggested that methodological errors were responsible for 2 and compromised, possibly fabricated peer review process was the cause for retraction in 3. In the remaining 1, it was identified after publication that certain studies had been missed, therefore, the review was retracted and a corrected version republished. Again, a majority of these papers were retracted in the past three years.

Number of retracted systematic reviews based on type of article. PubMed search (November 21, 2017) limited to article type “Systematic reviews.” Scopus search (December 1, 2017) using “Systematic reviews” AND “Retraction.”

SR = systematic reviews.

In this context, it is important to highlight a recent problem that has become apparent in scientific publishing. Numerous papers were retracted from 2014 onward by major publishers since they detected fraudulent reviews had been provided for submitted articles by authors (utilizing false reviewer email accounts, thereby enabling them to control the peer review of their own articles) or external agencies in collusion with authors. 32 As evident in Table 2 , three of the retractions of systematic reviews in rheumatology were probably due to this very same reason. In this context, it is necessary to bring up a concern among editors worldwide, regarding systematic reviews and meta-analyses commissioned by commercial editing agencies. It must be emphasized that such practices are of doubtful ethical integrity. Should authors have indulged in such practices, they should transparently declare this while submitting their review article. In the absence of such a declaration, it is possible to reject or retract such a work.

Considering the explosion in the number of meta-analyses, especially on genetic data, 33 it is also imperative for prospective authors to understand that proper methodology and lack of redundancy should remain major considerations.

PERSPECTIVES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

The first step to avoid redundancy is to search the CDSR and PROSPERO whether a similar study has been already registered. This helps avoid duplication of author efforts.

Peer reviewers should be familiar with methodology of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. They should cross-check related databases and PROSPERO to judge whether the review is redundant or not. In case of pre-registered reviews, it is imperative to compare the methodology prescribed in the pre-published protocol and check whether it has been followed or not. The presence of an appropriate PRISMA flow diagram is essential, as well as employment of a comprehensive search strategy. Appropriate assessment of heterogeneity in included studies should be looked at, proceeding to the stage of a meta-analysis only when the date permits one to. The quality assessment and risk of bias analysis should be asked for in a systematic review if not already included.

Poorly conducted systematic reviews and misleading meta-analyses are a significant concern for editors worldwide, especially in start-up journals. 34 Since the number of citations to articles from a journal indirectly reflect the quality of a journal, 16 it may be tempting for eager editors to favorably consider a systematic review for publication. Editors must be careful, considering the aforementioned recent instances of peer review compromise by fraudulent methods, which led to retraction of numerous systematic reviews ( Table 2 ). 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 Based on limited evidence ( Fig. 2 ), it may be prudent to view systematic reviews from certain geographic regions with greater caution. Our literature search suggested that retracted systematic reviews are more likely to be those on observational data, hence, such articles, especially those looking at genetic data, should be more carefully looked at. Also, journal policies may consider making it mandatory for authors to declare beforehand if services from commercial editing agencies have been sought for in writing systematic reviews. Such papers might be subjected to more stringent editorial policies.

Editors should engage in increasing awareness about inappropriate practices in systematic reviews by arranging workshops or online training courses. We have identified certain points which may help guide editors to flag potentially fraudulent systematic reviews ( Table 3 ).

PROSPERO = International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Armen Y. Gasparyan for inputs during the planning and editing of the article.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflict of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: Misra DP, Agarwal V. Data curation: Misra DP, Agarwal V. Formal analysis: Misra DP, Agarwal V. Investigation: Misra DP. Methodology: Misra DP, Agarwal V. Software: Misra DP, Agarwal V. Validation: Agarwal V. Writing - original draft: Misra DP. Writing - review & editing: Agarwal V.