Other requests may be made by a candidate who has made no impression on you, or only a negative one. In this case, consider the candidate’s potential and future goals, and be fair in your evaluation. Sending a negative letter or a generic positive letter for individuals you barely know is not helpful to the selection committee and can backfire for the candidate. It can also, in some instances, backfire for you if a colleague accepts a candidate based on your generic positive letter when you did not necessarily fully support that individual. For instance, letter writers sometimes stretch the truth to make a candidate sound better than they really are, thinking it is helpful. If you do not know the applicant well enough or feel that you cannot be supportive, you are not in a strong position to write the recommendation letter and should decline the request, being open about why you are declining to write the letter. Also, be selective about writing on behalf of colleagues who may be in one’s field but whose work is not well known to you. If you have to read the candidate’s curriculum vitae to find out who they are and what they have done, then you may not be qualified to write the letter [ 8 ].
When declining a request to provide a letter of support, it is important to explain your reasoning to the candidate and suggest how they might improve their prospects for the future [ 8 ]. If the candidate is having a similar problem with other mentors, try to help them identify a more appropriate referee or to explore whether they are making an appropriate application in the first place. Suggest constructive steps to improve relationships with mentors to identify individuals to provide letters in the future. Most importantly, do not let the candidate assume that all opportunities for obtaining supportive letters of recommendation have been permanently lost. Emphasize the candidate’s strengths by asking them to share a favourite paper, assignment, project, or other positive experience that may have taken place outside of your class or lab, to help you identify their strengths. Finally, discuss with the candidate their career goals to help them realize what they need to focus on to become more competitive or steer them in a different career direction. This conversation can mark an important step and become a great interaction and mentoring opportunity for ECRs.
Once you decide to write a recommendation letter, it is important to know what type and level of opportunity the candidate is applying for, as this will determine what should be discussed in the letter ( Figure 1 ). You should carefully read the opportunity posting description and/or ask the candidate to summarize the main requirements and let you know the specific points that they find important to highlight. Pay close attention to the language of the position announcement to fully address the requested information and tailor the letter to the specific needs of the institution, employer, or funding organisation. In some instances, a waiver form or an option indicating whether or not the candidate waives their right to see the recommendation document is provided. If the candidate queries a waiver decision, note that often referees are not allowed to send a letter that is not confidential and that there may be important benefits to maintaining the confidentiality of letters (see Table 1 ). Specifically, selection committees may view confidential letters as having greater credibility and, value and some letter writers may feel less reserved in their praise of candidates in confidential letters.
To acquire appropriate information about the candidate, one or more of the following documents may be valuable: a resume or curriculum vitae (CV), a publication or a manuscript, an assignment or exam written for your course, a copy of the application essay or personal statement, a transcript of academic records, a summary of current work, and specific recommendation forms or questionnaires (if provided) [ 9 ]. Alternatively, you may ask the candidate to complete a questionnaire asking for necessary information and supporting documents [ 10 ]. Examine the candidate’s CV and provide important context to the achievements listed therein. Tailor the letter for the opportunity using these documents as a guide, but do not repeat their contents as the candidate likely submits them separately. Even the most articulate of candidates may find it difficult to describe their qualities in writing [ 11 ]. Furthermore, a request may be made by a person who has made a good impression, but for whom you lack significant information to be able to write a strong letter. Thus, even if you know a candidate well, schedule a brief in-person, phone, or virtual meeting with them to 1) fill in gaps in your knowledge about them, 2) understand why they are applying for this particular opportunity, 3) help bring their past accomplishments into sharper focus, and 4) discuss their short- and long-term goals and how their current studies or research activities relate to the opportunity they are applying for and to these goals. Other key information to gather from the applicant includes the date on which the recommendation letter is due, as well as details on how to submit it.
For most applications (for both academic and non-academic opportunities), a letter of recommendation will need to cover both scholarly capabilities and achievements as well as a broader range of personal qualities and experiences beyond the classroom or the laboratory. This includes extracurricular experiences and traits such as creativity, tenacity, and collegiality. If necessary, discuss with the candidate what they would like to see additionally highlighted. As another example of matching a letter with its purpose, a letter for a fellowship application for a specific project should discuss the validity and feasibility of the project, as well as the candidate’s qualifications for fulfilling the project.
Another factor that greatly facilitates letter writing is drafting one as soon as possible after you have taught or trained the candidate, while your impressions are still clear. You might consider encouraging the candidate to make their requests early [ 11 ]. These letters can be placed in the candidate’s portfolio and maintained in your own files for future reference. If you are writing a letter in response to a request, start drafting it well in advance and anticipate multiple rounds of revision before submission. Once you have been asked by a candidate to write a letter, that candidate may return frequently, over a number of years, for additional letters. Therefore, maintain a digital copy of the letter for your records and for potential future applications for the same candidate.
In the opening, you should introduce yourself and the candidate, state your qualifications and explain how you became acquainted with the candidate, as well as the purpose of the letter, and a summary of your recommendation ( Table 2 ). To explain your relationship with the candidate you should fully describe the capacity in which you know them: the type of experience, the period during which you worked with the candidate, and any special assignments or responsibilities that the candidate performed under your guidance. For instance, the letter may start with: “This candidate completed their postdoctoral training under my supervision. I am pleased to be able to provide my strongest support in recommending them for this opportunity.” You may also consider ranking the candidate among similar level candidates within the opening section to give an immediate impression of your thoughts. Depending on the position, ranking the candidate may also be desired by selection committees, and may be requested within the letter. For instance, the recommendation form or instructions may ask you to rank the candidate in the top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc., of applicants. You could write "the student is in the top 5% of undergraduate students I have trained" Or “There are currently x graduate students in our department and I rank this candidate at the top 1%. Their experimental/computational skills are the best I have ever had in my own laboratory.”. Do not forget to include with whom or what group you are comparing the individual. If you have not yet trained many individuals in your own laboratory, include those that you trained previously as a researcher as reference. Having concentrated on the candidate’s individual or unique strengths, you might find it difficult to provide a ranking. This is less of an issue if a candidate is unambiguously among the top 10% that you have mentored but not all who come to you for a letter will fall within that small group. If you wish to offer a comparative perspective, you might more readily be able to do so in more specific areas such as whether the candidate is one of the most articulate, original, clear-thinking, motivated, or intellectually curious.
Key do’s and don’ts when writing a letter of recommendation
Theme | Do | Do Not |
---|---|---|
Describe all scholarly outputs in equal weight e.g., preprints, protocols, engineered animal models, computer models, software among others. Describe all scholarly and non-scholarly outputs in equal weight e.g., teaching, service, advocacy efforts. Promote the whole human candidate. | Do not ignore the candidate’s non-peer reviewed (e.g. preprints, data or code or protocols submitted to repositories) or in-press outputs. | |
Describe the candidate’s preprints and journal publications in terms of their quality and impact on your work and the field. | Do not judge papers by where they are published. It is the quality of the science & the reputation of the researcher, not the journal’s brand, that matters. Avoid paying excessive attention to how many papers the candidate has published in the family of journals. Refrain from boasting the journals impact factor (JIF) or journal name in the letter as publication in glamour journals does not validate the candidate’s research or guarantee a promising & successful career path. | |
Use agentic (e.g., confident, ambitious, independent) and standout (e.g., best, ideal) adjectives for all candidates, focusing on relevant accomplishments for the opportunity. | Avoid communal words (e.g., kind, affectionate, agreeable) that are more often used for women. Avoid using doubt raising phrases such as “He might be good”, or “she may have potential”, “she has a difficult personality”. | |
Make a criticism sound less damaging. e.g., “When candidate started at my laboratory, their skills were poorly developed, but they have worked diligently to improve them and have taken major steps in that direction.” | Do not leave out important, relevant information even if it may be perceived as negative, put a positive spin on it. | |
Do explain how the candidate’s current and prior work contributes to your laboratories research efforts. | Do not compare the candidate as being as good as person and , but not as good as person . This type of information creates subjectivity. | |
Include context for your scientific field and how the candidate’s research fits into and advances the field. | Do not merely describe mastery of techniques. Pay attention to the candidate’s wider comprehension of the field and their impact on their discipline. Avoid too much jargon and field-specific language, as often a broad audience will be reading the letter. |
The body of the recommendation letter should provide specific information about the candidate and address any questions or requirements posed in the selection criteria (see sections above). Some applications may ask for comments on a candidate’s scholarly performance. Refer the reader to the candidate’s CV and/or transcript if necessary but don’t report grades, unless to make an exceptional point (such as they were the only student to earn a top grade in your class). The body of the recommendation letter will contain the majority of the information including specific examples, relevant candidate qualities, and your experiences with the candidate, and therefore the majority of this manuscript focuses on what to include in this section.
The closing paragraph of the letter should briefly 1) summarize your opinions about the candidate, 2) clearly state your recommendation and strong support of the candidate for the opportunity that they are seeking, and 3) offer the recipient of the letter the option to contact you if they need any further information. Make sure to provide your email address and phone number in case the recipient has additional questions. The overall tone of the letter can represent your confidence in the applicant. If opportunity criteria are detailed and the candidate meets these criteria completely, include this information. Do not focus on what you may perceive as a candidate’s negative qualities as such tone may do more harm than intended ( Table 2 ). Finally, be aware of the Forer’s effect, a cognitive error, in which a very general description, that fits almost everyone, is used to describe a person [ 20 ]. Such generalizations can be harmful, as they provide the candidate the impression that they received a valuable, positive letter, but for the committee, who receive hundreds of similar letters, this is non-informative and unhelpful to the application.
In discussing a candidate’s qualities and character, proceed in ways similar to those used for intellectual evaluation ( Box 1 ). Information to specifically highlight may include personal characteristics, such as integrity, resilience, poise, confidence, dependability, patience, creativity, enthusiasm, teaching capabilities, problem-solving abilities, ability to manage trainees and to work with colleagues, curriculum development skills, collaboration skills, experience in grant writing, ability to organize events and demonstrate abilities in project management, and ability to troubleshoot (see section “ Use ethical principles, positive and inclusive language within the letter ” below for tips on using inclusive terminology). The candidate may also have a specific area of knowledge, strengths and experiences worth highlighting such as strong communication skills, expertise in a particular scientific subfield, an undergraduate degree with a double major, relevant work or research experience, coaching, and/or other extracurricular activities. Consider whether the candidate has taught others in the lab, or shown particular motivation and commitment in their work. When writing letters for mentees who are applying for (non-)academic jobs or admission to academic institutions, do not merely emphasize their strengths, achievements and potential, but also try to 1) convey a sense of what makes them a potential fit for that position or funding opportunity, and 2) fill in the gaps. Gaps may include an insufficient description of the candidate’s strengths or research given restrictions on document length. Importantly, to identify these gaps, one must have carefully reviewed both the opportunity posting as well as the application materials (see Box 1 , Table 2 ).
When writing letters to nominate colleagues for promotion or awards, place stronger emphasis on their achievements and contributions to a field, or on their track record of teaching, mentorship and service, to aid the judging panel. In addition to describing the candidate as they are right now, you can discuss the development the person has undergone (for specific examples see Table 2 ).
A letter of recommendation can also explain weaknesses or ambiguities in the candidate’s record. If appropriate – and only after consulting the candidate - you may wish to mention a family illness, financial hardship, or other factors that may have resulted in a setback or specific portion of the candidate’s application perceived weakness (such as in the candidate’s transcript). For example, sometimes there are acceptable circumstances for a gap in a candidate’s publication record—perhaps a medical condition or a family situation kept them out of the lab for a period of time. Importantly, being upfront about why there is a perceived gap or blemish in the application package can strengthen the application. Put a positive spin on the perceived negatives using terms such as “has taken steps to address gaps in knowledge”, “has worked hard to,” and “made great progress in” (see Table 2 ).
Describe a candidate’s intellectual capabilities in terms that reflect their distinctive or individual strengths and be prepared to support your judgment with field-specific content [ 12 ] and concrete examples. These can significantly strengthen a letter and will demonstrate a strong relationship between you and the candidate. Describe what the candidate’s strengths are, moments they have overcome adversity, what is important to them. For example: “candidate x is exceptionally intelligent. They proved to be a very quick study, learning the elements of research design and technique y in record time. Furthermore, their questions are always thoughtful and penetrating.”. Mention the candidate’s diligence, work ethic, and curiosity and do not merely state that “the applicant is strong” without specific examples. Describing improvements to candidate skills over time can help highlight their work ethic, resolve, and achievements over time. However, do not belabor a potential lower starting point.
Provide specific examples for when leadership was demonstrated, but do not include leadership qualities if they have not been demonstrated. For example, describe the candidate’s qualities such as independence, critical thinking, creativity, resilience, ability to design and interpret experiments; ability to identify the next steps and generate interesting questions or ideas, and what you were especially impressed by. Do not generically list the applicant as independent with no support or if this statement would be untrue.
Do not qualify candidate qualities based on a stereotype for specific identities. Quantify the candidate’s abilities, especially with respect to other scientists who have achieved success in the field and who the letter reader might know. Many letter writers rank applicants according to their own measure of what makes a good researcher, graduate trainee, or technician according to a combination of research strengths, leadership skills, writing ability, oral communication, teaching ability, and collegiality. Describe what the role of the candidate was in their project and eventual publication and do not assume letter readers will identify this information on their own (see Table 2 ). Including a description about roles and responsibilities can help to quantify a candidate’s contribution to the listed work. For example, “The candidate is the first author of the paper, designed, and led the project.”. Even the best mentor can overlook important points, especially since mentors typically have multiple mentees under their supervision. Thus, it can help to ask the candidate what they consider their strengths or traits, and accomplishments of which they are proud.
If you lack sufficient information to answer certain questions about the candidate, it is best to maintain the integrity and credibility of your letter - as the recommending person, you are potentially writing to a colleague and/or someone who will be impacted by your letter; therefore, honesty is key above all. Avoid the misconception that the more superlatives you use, the stronger the letter. Heavy use of generic phrases or clichés is unhelpful. Your letter can only be effective if it contains substantive information about the specific candidate and their qualifications for the opportunity. A recommendation that paints an unrealistic picture of a candidate may be discounted. All information in a letter of recommendation should be, to the best of your knowledge, accurate. Therefore, present the person truthfully but positively. Write strongly and specifically about someone who is truly excellent (explicitly describe how and why they are special). Write a balanced letter without overhyping the candidate as it will not help them.
Beware of what you leave out of the recommendation letter. For most opportunities, there are expectations of what should be included in a letter, and therefore what is not said can be just as important as what is said. Importantly, do not assume all the same information is necessary for every opportunity. In general, you should include the information stated above, covering how you know the candidate, their strengths, specific examples to support your statements, and how the candidate fits well for the opportunity. For example, if you don’t mention a candidate’s leadership skills or their ability to work well with others, the letter reader may wonder why, if the opportunity requires these skills. Always remember that opportunities are sought by many individuals, so evaluators may look for any reason to disregard an application, such as a letter not following instructions or discussing the appropriate material. Also promote the candidate by discussing all of their scholarly and non-scholarly efforts, including non-peer reviewed research outputs such as preprints, academic and non-academic service, and advocacy work which are among their broader impact and all indicative of valuable leadership qualities for both academic and non-academic environments ( Table 2 ).
Provide an even-handed judgment of scholarly impact, be fair and describe accomplishments fairly by writing a balanced letter about the candidate’s attributes that is thoughtful and personal (see Table 2 ). Submitting a generic, hastily written recommendation letter is not helpful and can backfire for both the candidate and the letter writer as you will often leave out important information for the specific opportunity; thus, allow for sufficient time and effort on each candidate/application.
Making the letter memorable by adding content that the reader will remember, such as an unusual anecdote, or use of a unique term to describe the candidate. This will help the application stand out from all the others. Tailor the letter to the candidate, including as much unique, relevant information as possible and avoid including personal information unless the candidate gives consent. Provide meaningful examples of achievements and provide stories or anecdotes that illustrate the candidate’s strengths. Say what the candidate specifically did to give you that impression ( Box 1 ). Don’t merely praise the candidate using generalities such as “candidate x is a quick learner”.
Gender affects scientific careers. Avoid providing information that is irrelevant to the opportunity, such as ethnicity, age, hobbies, or marital status. Write about professional attributes that pertain to the application. However, there are qualities that might be important to the job or funding opportunity. For instance, personal information may illustrate the ability to persevere and overcome adversity - qualities that are helpful in academia and other career paths. It is critical to pay attention to biases and choices of words while writing the letter [ 13 , 14 ]. Advocacy bias (a letter writer is more likely to write a strong letter for someone similar to themselves) has been identified as an issue in academic environments [ 3 ]. Studies have also shown that there are often differences in the choice of words used in letters for male and female scientists [ 3 , 5 ]. For instance, letters for women have been found not to contain much specific and descriptive language. Descriptions often pay greater attention to the personal lives or personal characteristics of women than men, focusing on items that have little relevance in a letter of recommendation. When writing recommendation letters, employers have a tendency to focus on scholarly capabilities in male candidates and personality features in female candidates; for instance, female candidates tend to be depicted in letters as teachers and trainees, whereas male candidates are described as researchers and professionals [ 15 ]. Also, letters towards males often contain more standout words such as “superb”, “outstanding”, and “excellent”. Furthermore, letters for women had been found to contain more doubt-raising statements, including negative or unexplained comments [ 3 , 15 , 16 ]. This is discriminative towards women and gives a less clear picture of women as professionals. Keep the letter gender neutral. Do not write statements such as “candidate x is a kind woman” or “candidate y is a fantastic female scientist” as these have no bearing on whether someone will do well in graduate school or in a job. One way to reduce gender bias is by checking your reference letter with a gender bias calculator [ 17 , 18 ]. Test for gender biases by writing a letter of recommendation for any candidate, male or female, and then switch all the pronouns to the opposite gender. Read the letter over and ask yourself if it sounds odd. If it does, you should probably change the terms used [ 17 ]. Other biases also exist, and so while gender bias has been the most heavily investigated, bias based on other identities (race, nationality, ethnicity, among others) should also be examined and assessed in advance and during letter writing to ensure accurate and appropriate recommendations for all.
The recommendation letter should be written using language that is straightforward and concise [ 19 ]. Avoid using jargon or language that is too general or effusive ( Table 1 ). Formats and styles of single and co-signed letters are also important considerations. In some applications, the format is determined by the application portal itself in which the recommender is asked to answer a series of questions. If these questions do not cover everything you would like to address you could inquire if there is the option to provide a letter as well. Conversely, if the recommendation questionnaire asks for information that you cannot provide, it is best to explicitly mention this in writing. The care with which you write the letter will also influence the effectiveness of the letter - writing eloquently is another way of registering your support for the candidate. Letters longer than two pages can be counterproductive, and off-putting as reviewers normally have a large quantity of letters to read. In special cases, longer letters may be more favourable depending on the opportunity. On the other hand, anything shorter than a page may imply a lack of interest or knowledge, or a negative impression on the candidate. In letter format, write at least 3-4 paragraphs. It is important to note that letters from different sectors, such as academia versus industry tend to be of different lengths. Ensure that your letter is received by the requested method (mail or e-mail) and deadline, as a late submission could be detrimental for the candidate. Write and sign the letter on your department letterhead which is a further form of identification.
Recommendation letters can serve as important tools for assessing ECRs as potential candidates for a job, course, or funding opportunity. Candidates need to request letters in advance and provide relevant information for the recommender. Readers at selection committees need to examine the letter objectively with an eye for information on the quality of the candidate’s scholarly and non-scholarly endeavours and scientific traits. As a referee, it is important that you are positive, candid, yet helpful, as you work with the candidate in drafting a letter in their support. In writing a recommendation letter, summarize your thoughts on the candidate and emphasize your strong support for their candidacy. A successful letter communicates the writer’s enthusiasm for an individual, but does so realistically, sympathetically, and with concrete examples to support the writer’s associations. Writing recommendation letters can help mentors examine their interactions with their mentee and know them in different light. Express your willingness to help further by concluding the letter with an offer to be contacted should the reader need more information. Remember that a letter writer’s judgment and credibility are at stake thus do spend the time and effort to present yourself as a recommender in the best light and help ECRs in their career path.
S.J.H. was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R35GM133732. A.P.S. was partially supported by the NARSAD Young Investigator Grant 27705.
ECR | Early-Career Researcher |
CV | Curriculum Vitae |
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide
Table of Contents
Definition:
Research Methodology refers to the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research, investigate problems, and gather data and information for a specific purpose. It involves the techniques and procedures used to identify, collect , analyze , and interpret data to answer research questions or solve research problems . Moreover, They are philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process.
Research methodology formats can vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project, but the following is a basic example of a structure for a research methodology section:
I. Introduction
II. Research Design
III. Data Collection Methods
IV. Data Analysis Methods
V. Ethical Considerations
VI. Limitations
VII. Conclusion
Types of Research Methodology are as follows:
This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. This type of research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.
This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as words, images, and observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena, to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular topic, and to generate hypotheses.
This is a research methodology that combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research. This approach can be particularly useful for studies that aim to explore complex phenomena and to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.
This is a research methodology that involves in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases. Case studies are often used in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to gain a detailed understanding of a particular individual or group.
This is a research methodology that involves a collaborative process between researchers and practitioners to identify and solve real-world problems. Action research is often used in education, healthcare, and social work.
This is a research methodology that involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables to observe their effects on a dependent variable. Experimental research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.
This is a research methodology that involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is often used to study attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.
This is a research methodology that involves the development of theories based on the data collected during the research process. Grounded theory is often used in sociology and anthropology to generate theories about social phenomena.
An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:
Research Methodology for Investigating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Symptoms of Depression in Adults
Introduction:
The aim of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. To achieve this objective, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach.
Research Design:
The study will follow a pre-test and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group receiving CBT and a control group receiving no intervention. The study will also include a qualitative component, in which semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to explore their experiences of receiving CBT.
Participants:
Participants will be recruited from community mental health clinics in the local area. The sample will consist of 100 adults aged 18-65 years old who meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.
Intervention :
The experimental group will receive 12 weekly sessions of CBT, each lasting 60 minutes. The intervention will be delivered by licensed mental health professionals who have been trained in CBT. The control group will receive no intervention during the study period.
Data Collection:
Quantitative data will be collected through the use of standardized measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants from the experimental group. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period, and will explore participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.
Data Analysis:
Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.
Ethical Considerations:
This study will comply with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Participants will provide informed consent before participating in the study, and their privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. Any adverse events or reactions will be reported and managed appropriately.
Data Management:
All data collected will be kept confidential and stored securely using password-protected databases. Identifying information will be removed from qualitative data transcripts to ensure participants’ anonymity.
Limitations:
One potential limitation of this study is that it only focuses on one type of psychotherapy, CBT, and may not generalize to other types of therapy or interventions. Another limitation is that the study will only include participants from community mental health clinics, which may not be representative of the general population.
Conclusion:
This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. By using a randomized controlled trial and a mixed-methods approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CBT and depression. The results of this study will have important implications for the development of effective treatments for depression in clinical settings.
Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It’s an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings. Here are the steps to write a research methodology:
Research methodology is typically written after the research proposal has been approved and before the actual research is conducted. It should be written prior to data collection and analysis, as it provides a clear roadmap for the research project.
The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
The methodology should be written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be based on established research practices and standards. It is important to provide enough detail so that the reader can understand how the research was conducted and evaluate the validity of the results.
Here are some of the applications of research methodology:
Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:
Research methodology has several advantages that make it a valuable tool for conducting research in various fields. Here are some of the key advantages of research methodology:
Research Methodology | Research Methods |
---|---|
Research methodology refers to the philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process. | refer to the techniques and procedures used to collect and analyze data. |
It is concerned with the underlying principles and assumptions of research. | It is concerned with the practical aspects of research. |
It provides a rationale for why certain research methods are used. | It determines the specific steps that will be taken to conduct research. |
It is broader in scope and involves understanding the overall approach to research. | It is narrower in scope and focuses on specific techniques and tools used in research. |
It is concerned with identifying research questions, defining the research problem, and formulating hypotheses. | It is concerned with collecting data, analyzing data, and interpreting results. |
It is concerned with the validity and reliability of research. | It is concerned with the accuracy and precision of data. |
It is concerned with the ethical considerations of research. | It is concerned with the practical considerations of research. |
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Topics: Community Engagement , Five Questions
Five questions with courtney beard on engaging communities in research..
Courtney Beard , PhD, faced a problem familiar to many Harvard Medical School researchers: How to diversify your research studies to make them more applicable to the general population.
In Beard’s case, she was planning a study in the general population to evaluate a mental health app she developed as a cognitive-behavioral tool for so-called interpretation bias, which studies suggest is an important factor in anxiety and depression. The app was first tested at McLean Hospital, which serves a mostly white, well-educated population. She wanted to make sure her app also worked well for people historically under-represented in research studies, including people who identify as Black, Hispanic, and Latinx.
Serendipitously, Beard learned from a colleague about the study review service offered by the Community Coalition for Equity in Research , and immediately signed up. She filled out a two-page equity-focused template describing her study and made a 10-minute video outlining her research interests. Shortly thereafter, she found herself video-conferencing with a panel of community-embedded experts who provided individualized advice and guidance on how to make her study more equitable.
Beard, a clinical psychologist with expertise in anxiety disorders and cognitive behavior therapy, is associate professor of psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School (HMS), and director of the Cognition and Affect Research and Education (CARE) Laboratory at McLean Hospital.
Much of our work involves identifying mechanisms that keep people anxious or depressed, such as mental habits, and then developing treatments to target those very specific mental habits. Habit Works is a perfect example of that. It focuses on how people interpret the countless ambiguous situations they face throughout the day. We know that interpretation bias plays a big role in how people feel in the moment, and it impacts what they do, especially if they’re feeling anxious.
HabitWorks has been developed and tested over a number of years in people who have lived experience with these conditions. The aim is to help people become more aware of how they’re interpreting situations and consider opening to alternative interpretations. Perhaps they become a little more flexible in their thinking, or at least start to pause when they notice themselves jumping to a particular type of conclusion.
Yes, it changed substantially. We originally planned to jump right into a pilot study to test our app in a general population and recruit a few hundred people. As a result of the review, we decided to take a step back and do a much smaller study specifically with people who identify as Black, Hispanic, or Latinx. We wanted to understand how they were experiencing the intervention and make sure it was acceptable to them before testing it more broadly, precisely because it had been first developed and tested in the primarily white population served by McLean. At the end of the study, we interviewed participants to clearly understand how they were using and experiencing the app.
“That warm handoff is critical. It has enabled us to be much more successful in getting people to respond to us. Otherwise, I’m just another Harvard professor wanting something from them.”
A particular concern was that the app presents day-to-day situations that are uncertain or ambiguous in some way. For people from minoritized backgrounds, those types of situations may bring up discrimination experiences or questions of identity in addition to the anxiety-related interpretations that are being targeted for reframing. We wanted to be sure the app wasn’t bringing up thoughts about discrimination, causing stress, or creating a perception that we were asking people to reappraise certain types of situations, which could be invalidating and unhelpful.
With changes recommended by the Coalition, we were able to answer many of those questions in advance of the bigger study in a broader population, which we’ve now just started. We found the app itself was easily accepted. People enjoyed using it and it didn’t cause harm. That was very reassuring.
In response to the Coalition’s recommendations, we also expanded and revamped the resources we provide to people along with the app. We added more resources around finding a therapist based on various aspects related to identity, as well as information on topics such as financial supports and coping with discrimination. We now have an exhaustive resource list that we give people.
The community ambassadors have been helping us form connections and spread the word about an NIMH-funded trial that is testing how parents’ interpretation bias might get passed down and ultimately cause anxiety in kids.
Quite a bit of data supports the idea that anxieties are passed down, and parenting behaviors might be even more important than genetics. Some data suggests that how parents interpret threat in their world leads them to engage in parenting behaviors that teach the child that the world is threatening, that maybe they can’t handle it and should avoid it. Those behaviors can keep the parent anxious as well as transfer anxiety to the children.
We’re using the HabitWorks app to manipulate parents’ interpretations and examine the downstream effects on their anxiety and their parenting behaviors related to anxiety. Then we bring in their kids and assess their own interpretations and anxiety.
We’re trying to enroll 300 parent-child dyads and would like at least 30% of those to be parents of color, mostly focusing on Black, Hispanic, and Latinx families. We also want fathers to represent 30% of our cohort because they have been largely ignored in this literature so far.
“Everyone’s hopefully realizing that if we want our research to have an impact, community-engaged research is something everyone should be trained in and conducting.”
We’ve been partnering with different organizations in the Springfield area in Western Massachusetts. We’re still early in the process, but we hope to expand the reach of our study beyond the populations of Boston and its affluent suburbs. The goal is to have a representative sample from which we can draw meaningful conclusions for all groups of people.
The people we’re working with are deeply embedded in their communities. They’re very well connected across many different community-based organizations and have helped us identify which might be a good fit for our outreach. When I reach out to these organizations, I can say I’m working with someone they already know.
That warm handoff is critical. It has enabled us to be much more successful in getting people to respond to us. Otherwise, I’m just another Harvard professor wanting something from them. That’s not a good way to start.
It’s something I wish I had learned about when I was in graduate school. A subset of people have been doing this type of research for a long time, but it was not necessarily viewed as relevant to all researchers. I think that is changing now. Everyone’s hopefully realizing that if we want our research to have an impact, community-engaged research is something everyone should be trained in and conducting.
In my work developing treatments for depression and anxiety, I’ve always included the perspectives of people with lived experience. A patient advisory board helped us develop the app, and we’ve asked people about their experiences. But our community engagement had always been specific to the clinic I was partnering with, whether at McLean or primary care clinics. Working with the Coalition has helped me go even further.
I’m eager to get to know these communities, to learn more from them, and to have them inform our future studies. So far, what we research has always been led by my team and me. I’m eager to realize the next phase of this process, to really listen to what research the community thinks is important to conduct.
Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.
We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.
In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.
If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.
Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.
When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.
When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).
The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.
The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:
Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):
Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.
Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.
Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.
The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.
Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.
Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).
You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.
We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?
On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.
For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.
Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .
We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.
Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.
Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.
Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category
Full index of topics
Registration now closed
Workshop group, saturday, august 10 12:00pm - 2:00pm.
Join us twice a month to give and receive writing feedback in a safe and respectful environment.
Are you looking for a writing workshop group?
Writing All Year is a place to share your work-in-progress with other writers. We meet on the second and fourth Saturdays of each month to give and receive encouragement, insight, and feedback in a safe and respectful environment. Our objective: to improve the work with kindness and compassion. If this sounds like something you've been looking for, please join us. Everyone welcome. Contact [email protected].
AGE GROUP: | Adults |
EVENT TYPE: | Virtual | Summer @ CALS | Society & Culture | Literature & Language | Fun & Play | Art |
TAGS: | WritingSeries | Summer@CALS | CALSWritingCircle |
Today's hours
We're open 9:00AM to 5:30PM
Current tufts students, inside admissions, how to write a great letter of recommendation.
To the teachers and counselors working hard to support students – thank you so much for your hard work! We have the privilege of reading more than 30,000 applications and an integral piece of each student application are the letters of recommendation we review from teachers and counselors. For many files, these letters share valuable insight into how students will interact with one another in our classrooms, dining halls, and other places on campus. With the school year around the corner, I wanted to share advice on creating a strong letter as well as some thoughts we have when reviewing applications.
When our committee reviews an application, we are on the search for two broad categories: academic potential and student experiences/perspectives. Why? Well, we want to see if a student will be set up for success in our rigorous academic programs and we want to get a better understanding of how each student will contribute to the community at Tufts.
Centering your letter around these two ideas is a starting point. The first pitfall we see is when a recommender doesn’t know what their student is including in their application . Students are required to send in their transcripts and a list of their extracurricular activities. If your letter tells us that a student got As in math and science and that they are a varsity swimmer, that’s probably going to be something we learn somewhere else in the application.
The recommendation letter is a unique opportunity to show a side of the student that they cannot write about. Instead of rehashing what is already in the application, write about the the context behind the student .
That A+ Jeremy got in Calculus? He was the only person to do that in his class of 300 students.
Denise is a varsity swimmer? She swims the fastest 100m the school has seen in 7 years.
Samantha may have received a C in AP Spanish, but she commutes 45 minutes to school each way and was the only student in the school who took the exam. She got a 4.
Another way to provide context in your recommendation letter is through anecdotes. It’s the old adage: “ Show don’t tell ”. Instead of telling us that a student is a hard worker, a leader in the classroom, or a kind friend, show us examples using short anecdotes to highlight moments that we might see if this student is on our campus.
Anecdotes can be short, two to three sentences long that highlight an otherwise standard superlative. We don’t need three pages of growth narrative from their ninth grade year, one solid page is perfect.
“Every day before school, Isaiah arrives early to ask questions about topics that we covered the previous week. He pulls out his folder and the details in his notes are far above that of most students I teach.”
“Our school receives new students frequently, and during every study hall I see Maria introducing herself and starting conversations with her new peers. She goes out of her way to make them feel welcome, I’ve even had a new student come to me and say that without Maria they would have felt lost.”
At Tufts, we see so many amazing students with different personalities and in our application pool. We like them all! We want a mix of leaders and team-members, extroverted and introverted, students who know exactly what they want to study and those who are excited to figure it out when they get to college. There isn’t one “type” of student that finds success in our review process .
As we review a file, we build an impression of a student through their writing, their activities, and their grades. Your letters are not just a confirmation that our understanding of the student is correct, but can become an expansion of the student’s application. Your letters are what allow us to have a fuller understanding of the impact a student has on their current community, and potentially the community we have at Tufts.
With the Fall semester around the corner, we look forward to receiving and reading your thoughtful letters of recommendation!
Home > ETD > Doctoral > 5908
A causal-comparative study of the writing motivational constructs of students with and without attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in online college composition courses.
Michelle Bianco , Liberty University Follow
School of Education
Doctor of Philosophy
Maryna Svirska-Otero
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, self-efficacy, motivation, online college composition
Curriculum and Instruction | Education
Bianco, Michelle, "A Causal-Comparative Study of the Writing Motivational Constructs of Students With and Without Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder in Online College Composition Courses" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects . 5908. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5908
The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental, causal-comparative study is to determine if there is a difference in the writing motivation of students with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and students without ADHD in online college composition I courses. The study of writing motivation in relation to ADHD in online college composition courses is significant as writing motivation is a crucial predictor of academic success and persistence. Data was collected from a population of approximately 1685 students enrolled in online college composition I at an accredited online university within a larger midwestern land-grant public university system. Using the Writing Motivation Questionnaire and the self-reported results of the covariate (Personal Writing Assessment score), students without ADHD were compared to students with ADHD to determine how writing motivation construct scores differed between the groups. The data was analyzed using a one-way analysis of covariance controlling for the effect of the covariate, and the results demonstrated that this sample of online college composition students with ADHD had lower levels of writing motivation, which correlated with lower previous writing abilities. Further discussion included the impact of ADHD on writing motivation, academic success, and the link to early assessment. The implications of the research suggest a need for accommodation. Limitations, such as the time constraints of the survey combined with the assessment, were also addressed, and recommendations for further research using essay writing as the covariate were made.
Since August 09, 2024
Curriculum and Instruction Commons
Advanced Search
Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement
Privacy Copyright
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper. As you
Research recommendations refer to suggestions or advice given to someone who is looking to conduct research on a specific topic or area. These recommendations may include suggestions for research methods, data collection techniques, sources of information, and other factors that can help to ensure that the research is conducted in a rigorous and effective manner. Research recommendations may ...
Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of exploration. Read more.
Stuck on the recommendations section of your research? Read our guide on how to write recommendations for a research study and get started.
Recommendations for future research should be: Concrete and specific. Supported with a clear rationale. Directly connected to your research. Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.
Crafting impactful recommendations is the key to unlocking the full potential of your study. By providing clear, actionable suggestions based on your findings, you can bridge the gap between research and real-world application. In this ultimate guide, we'll show you how to write recommendations that make a difference in your research report or ...
Learn how to write the research implications and recommendations sections for your dissertation or thesis. Simple explainer with examples.
Recommendations in a research paper: meaning and goals Before you start learning how to write recommendations in a research paper, the first thing is to clarify the meaning of this term. It is a significant element in the research paper structure, as it is critical to your discussion section and conclusion.
Research educator Nikki Anderson provides in-depth examples of how to craft the perfect research recommendation.
There is often confusion around the difference between implications and recommendations. Read this article to learn what are implications and recommendations in research with tips and examples on how to write these key elements of research papers.
High-quality research articles that get many citations contain both implications and recommendations. Implications are the impact your research makes, whereas recommendations are specific actions that can then be taken based on your findings, such as for more research or for policymaking. That seems clear enough, but the two are commonly confused.
How to write a recommendation for your research paper Recommendations are used to call for action or solutions to the problems you have investigated in your research paper.
The proposed statement on research recommendations applies to uncertainties of the effects of any form of health intervention or treatment and is intended for research in humans rather than basic scientific research.
Follow our step-by-step guide to write the perfect research paper, from brainstorming ideas all the way to the revision process.
the research recommendations are relevant to current practice. we communicate well with the research community. This process and methods guide has been developed to help guidance-producing centres make research recommendations. It describes a step-by-step approach to identifying uncertainties, formulating research recommendations and research ...
Our aim was to discuss the state of research recommendations within our organisations and to develop guidelines for improving the presentation of proposals for further research. All organisations had found weaknesses in the way researchers and authors of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines stated the need for further research.
Recommendations are crucial to your paper because they suggest solutions to your research problems. You can include recommendations in the discussion sections of your writing and briefly in the conclusions of your dissertation, thesis, or research paper. This article discusses dissertation recommendations, their purpose, and how to write one.
How to write recommendations in a research paper Many students put in a lot of effort and write a good report however they are not able to give proper recommendations. Recommendations in the research paper should be included in your research. As a researcher, you display a deep understanding of the topic of research.
The conclusion of a research paper restates the research problem, summarizes your arguments or findings, and discusses the implications.
How to Write Recommendations: Do's and Don'ts. Writing research recommendations involves suggesting future research directions or actions that can be taken based on the findings of a research study. The most crucial element of the analysis process, recommendations, is where you provide specific suggestions for interventions or solutions to the problems and limitations found throughout the ...
Discover 10+ examples of recommendations in research, their purpose, and various types. Enhance your research skills with these practical insights and tips.
Writing recommendation letters on behalf of students and other early-career researchers is an important mentoring task within academia. An effective recommendation letter describes key candidate qualities such as academic achievements, extracurricular ...
How to Write Research Methodology. Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It's an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings.
In response to the Coalition's recommendations, we also expanded and revamped the resources we provide to people along with the app. We added more resources around finding a therapist based on various aspects related to identity, as well as information on topics such as financial supports and coping with discrimination.
The reviewer's evaluation, guidance, and publication recommendation are logically summarized in a written review that should be thorough, unbiased, and submitted in a timely fashion. ... Items to Consider for Each Section of an Original Research Manuscript When Writing a Peer Review for Radiology.
This post outlines how to create references for large language model AI tools like ChatGPT and how to present AI-generated text in a paper.
In 2020, the Division of Social Psychology of the German Psychological Society (DGPs) published 11 methodological recommendations for improving the quality, replicability, and transparency of social psychological research. We evaluate these recommendations in a quantitative and qualitative survey conducted with members of the division (N = 54).
Recommendations. Get a Recommendation New This Month Suggest a Title New Release Newsletter 1000 Books Before Kindergarten. Learn. Go Back. Research. Research Tools Bases de Datos Online Encyclopedias & Dictionaries Magazines & Journals. ... Writing All Year is a place to share your work-in-progress with other writers. We meet on the second and ...
The recommendation letter is a unique opportunity to show a side of the student that they cannot write about. Instead of rehashing what is already in the application, write about the the context behind the student .
The implications of the research suggest a need for accommodation. Limitations, such as the time constraints of the survey combined with the assessment, were also addressed, and recommendations for further research using essay writing as the covariate were made.